I heard this one time from a gaggle of lawyers: “If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither the law or facts on your side, pound the table.”
I think Mahler and his crew just doing a lots of table pounding.
Well this is just going back a hundred years and endorsing misogyny with a SBC stamp if it's approved. So many females I've known have been called to lead and preach and have responded, "Yes, Lord, Your will, not mine."
Who in their right mind, would become a pastor or leader without a 'call'?
Congratulations Al Mohler! You are repeating the history of your organization only with women this time. As most of you are aware SBC had its origins in slavery. It was specifically formed as a split from the Triennial Convention because it wanted to appoint slaveholders as missionaries in Southern States. Even though they went through the motions in 1995 of repenting, true repentance is to turn the opposite direction. So just like you were on the wrong side with regard to slavery, you are on the wrong side with regard to women in ministry. Read your whole Bible in its context, don't just pull out words that make you comfortable because you're so insecure.
My childhood church banned women from announcing the numbers of the hymns during the service, because apparently, that counted as preaching. (But somehow, women teaching Sunday school doesn't count. Women singing in the praise band, the choir, or as a solo act doesn't count either.)
Also, they hired my mom as the organist for five years, and during that time she occasionally acted as the choir director when they needed a sub. Everyone loved her performances and appreciated her expertise. But even though she has a doctorate in music theory and a degree in choral conducting, they never put Dr. next to her name in the bulletin, or called her that title out loud. The previous organist, a man who also had a doctorate in music, was afforded that courtesy even after he died. (Perhaps this wasn't in itself related to doctrine about women preaching or leading the congregation in worship, but it sure as heck was evidence of the sexism and misogyny that's baked into that subculture.)
I still, to this day, wonder why being a woman disqualifies someone from church leadership (or from basic respect!) in a place like that. It's the same scripture, same hymns, same Bible, but if someone who has a vagina* is speaking or singing, any lessons you might learn are null and void (unless, again, they're teaching Sunday school to children and teenagers).
*I'm aware and affirm that not all women have a vagina. But that's how the SBC conceives of what a woman is, at least anatomically, and I'm just trying to draw attention to how silly it is that the bits you have in your pants determine what you can or cannot do in church.
So, just wondering, is it possible for religious groups (maybe seminaries) that fully invite women into ALL leadership and preaching and pastoring roles (just like Jesus) to have a booth on the exhibit floor welcoming SBC women into our churches? I know several Episcopal priests and UMC clergy who came over from the SBC and other restricting churches since it was the way they could respond to their call to ordination. Probably would not be allowed-but I would like to be a fly on the wall to see that happen.
Actually it can be accomplished, but the exhibit floor of a conference may have some challenges that the sponsoring organization may need to avoid if it is a broader conference such as AAR or SBL. It could come across as trying to poach people from one organization to the other and could cause problems that a larger organization would want to avoid. On the other hand, it might be possible if the conference were a UMC or other type of organization that is denominationally sponsored. They could have a booth that would explain what would be required for a woman already ordained with another group to become ordained and receive an appointment with their denomination. What normally is required is that the women who are already ordained would need to take a polity test (or class) to make sure they understood the theological tenets of the different Protestant denomination as well as its practices that might differ. It also would be dependent on her level of education. Usually the biggest hurdle is the difference in whether a person tends to be Calvinist versus Arminian in their theological perspective. Most of the other elements are easily navigated but the person would need the training in exegesis from a different perspective than what is standardly done in many Baptist seminaries. Although, one of the things traditionally about Baptist churches is that they used to allow much more freedom at the congregational level. But going back to the incident with Paige Patterson against Sherry Klouda at Southwestern Baptist Seminary in 2007, it's clear that even seminaries are not necessarily open to women in roles of authority as she was let go as the professor in Hebrew and Aramaic because she couldn't be ordained as a minister or pastor with SBC.
You’ve thought a lot more about this than I have. I was just thinking of an “oasis” setting for anyone experiencing a call to ordination (or a transfer) with an opportunity to follow up later. No poaching involved-unless that’s the ongoing work of the Spirit. I can imagine some women in collars saying “.yes” a lot.
Sorry for getting into the weeds automatically. ☺️ I used to be the chair of theology at a major Christian University so I tend to automatically go into the technicalities of whether something is possible. Sorry about that.
Because I grew up in these circles (not anymore though) I know what scripture they use to assert this stance.
It is 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-12.
It’s so hard for me because although I see that the Bible says women should be quiet in church, I also know Gods heart very well. And it’s honestly confusing for me to reconcile the two on this topic.
These are the same people, however, who say God no longer speaks and that all of the gifts of the spirit are no longer active. So I can’t take anything they say with any merit.
The "historic interpretation of the word" condoned chattel slavery for 1865 years. We would be interested to hear your opinion on that.
Additionally, your argument of trying to undermine women's ordination is historically ignorant. Salvation army ordained women at its formation in 1865. Nazarene was 1908.
United Church of Christ - 1853.
Assemblies of god - 1914.
It's a pre-feminist phenomenon.
It's also grounded in a biblical hermeneutic that is at least as valid as yours. Paul's use of premogeniture in his prohibition against women teaching men and usurping authority over them, for whatever purpose he intends, stands in contradiction to Junia as an apostle (check the koine, do not try quoting the ESV), Priscilla correcting Apollos (again, the prohibition is against a woman teaching a man, not holding pastoral office nor preaching, Phoebe being mentioned as a diakonos (a title also used to refer to apostles in Acts, again, check the koine as I'm sure the ESV buried that one as well) who in the historical context would have read the epistle to the Romans aloud to her audience as well as explained its contents to an audience which would have included men, just to name a few counterfactuals to the prohibition statement.
But we get it, there's a clear statement there and obviously those are not to be disputed, nor read in a larger context. So have you given all your possessions to the poor? Have you reconciled the fact that the sheep and the goats makes no mention of justification by faith? Suddenly I'm guessing that a cohesive reading becomes a slightly more appealing concept.
You walked into this comment section with self-declared "full knowledge" of the issue and I would suspect also full knowledge that the statement of scripture being clear on this issue is a bald faced lie. Because it is. There are complimentarians who hold their convictions as a matter of conviction. You are evidently a troll who rolled into a comment section to make a spectacle of your posturing to defend the reputation of a far right weather vane who changed his "conviction" on female ordination overnight because Carl F. H. Henry hurt his feelings.
And Beau, at one point some years ago, the SBC actually nullified the ordinations of women ministers it had already ratified. I wonder how the Holy Spirit felt about that one!!
Pentecost is wonderfully inconvenient for men who think the Holy Spirit needs a denominational parking permit. “Your sons and daughters will prophesy” is not exactly subtle, but somehow the gatekeepers read it and said, “Yes, but not near the microphone.” The timing is almost performance art: while churches prepare to celebrate the Spirit falling on everyone, the SBC is trying to install a theological sprinkler system that only sprays men. At some point “biblical fidelity” starts looking suspiciously like fear of gifted women with a Bible, a voice, and no interest in asking Al Mohler for hall-pass theology.
This is the whole basis of sexism— creating an artificial wall or ceiling or what have you based on something about a person that cannot change (gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, etc) than some group makes them “less than.”
I guess I’m wonder why this is so surprising?!
The SBC has followed their MAN-DICTATED “laws” since its inception— and the men aren’t going to give up this power anytime soon — especially when the tenor of the current regime in power supports their viewpoint.
People like him make it up as they go along. Doesn't matter 'what the Bible says'; it's what he says that matters and the Bible just has to tag along, nevermind God (who of course tags along last behind the Bible).
So they lose their SBC standing? Great. Bring it on! Better out than in, and all that. If they don't want to listen to God, then we're better off without them.
I heard this one time from a gaggle of lawyers: “If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither the law or facts on your side, pound the table.”
I think Mahler and his crew just doing a lots of table pounding.
I just don’t understand why that’s the hill the SBC wants to die on. There are so many more pressing issues, and this feels like a diversion to me
Even allowing it to be something to vote on is just saying, " Scripture is wrong."
Well this is just going back a hundred years and endorsing misogyny with a SBC stamp if it's approved. So many females I've known have been called to lead and preach and have responded, "Yes, Lord, Your will, not mine."
Who in their right mind, would become a pastor or leader without a 'call'?
Congratulations Al Mohler! You are repeating the history of your organization only with women this time. As most of you are aware SBC had its origins in slavery. It was specifically formed as a split from the Triennial Convention because it wanted to appoint slaveholders as missionaries in Southern States. Even though they went through the motions in 1995 of repenting, true repentance is to turn the opposite direction. So just like you were on the wrong side with regard to slavery, you are on the wrong side with regard to women in ministry. Read your whole Bible in its context, don't just pull out words that make you comfortable because you're so insecure.
The Catholic Church has not allowed women to be ordained for centuries. Apparently, it requires a penis.
I’m in my third decade as a preacher, a vocation to which Jesus called me, and I really don’t give a s*** what Al Mohler thinks.
My childhood church banned women from announcing the numbers of the hymns during the service, because apparently, that counted as preaching. (But somehow, women teaching Sunday school doesn't count. Women singing in the praise band, the choir, or as a solo act doesn't count either.)
Also, they hired my mom as the organist for five years, and during that time she occasionally acted as the choir director when they needed a sub. Everyone loved her performances and appreciated her expertise. But even though she has a doctorate in music theory and a degree in choral conducting, they never put Dr. next to her name in the bulletin, or called her that title out loud. The previous organist, a man who also had a doctorate in music, was afforded that courtesy even after he died. (Perhaps this wasn't in itself related to doctrine about women preaching or leading the congregation in worship, but it sure as heck was evidence of the sexism and misogyny that's baked into that subculture.)
I still, to this day, wonder why being a woman disqualifies someone from church leadership (or from basic respect!) in a place like that. It's the same scripture, same hymns, same Bible, but if someone who has a vagina* is speaking or singing, any lessons you might learn are null and void (unless, again, they're teaching Sunday school to children and teenagers).
*I'm aware and affirm that not all women have a vagina. But that's how the SBC conceives of what a woman is, at least anatomically, and I'm just trying to draw attention to how silly it is that the bits you have in your pants determine what you can or cannot do in church.
So, just wondering, is it possible for religious groups (maybe seminaries) that fully invite women into ALL leadership and preaching and pastoring roles (just like Jesus) to have a booth on the exhibit floor welcoming SBC women into our churches? I know several Episcopal priests and UMC clergy who came over from the SBC and other restricting churches since it was the way they could respond to their call to ordination. Probably would not be allowed-but I would like to be a fly on the wall to see that happen.
Actually it can be accomplished, but the exhibit floor of a conference may have some challenges that the sponsoring organization may need to avoid if it is a broader conference such as AAR or SBL. It could come across as trying to poach people from one organization to the other and could cause problems that a larger organization would want to avoid. On the other hand, it might be possible if the conference were a UMC or other type of organization that is denominationally sponsored. They could have a booth that would explain what would be required for a woman already ordained with another group to become ordained and receive an appointment with their denomination. What normally is required is that the women who are already ordained would need to take a polity test (or class) to make sure they understood the theological tenets of the different Protestant denomination as well as its practices that might differ. It also would be dependent on her level of education. Usually the biggest hurdle is the difference in whether a person tends to be Calvinist versus Arminian in their theological perspective. Most of the other elements are easily navigated but the person would need the training in exegesis from a different perspective than what is standardly done in many Baptist seminaries. Although, one of the things traditionally about Baptist churches is that they used to allow much more freedom at the congregational level. But going back to the incident with Paige Patterson against Sherry Klouda at Southwestern Baptist Seminary in 2007, it's clear that even seminaries are not necessarily open to women in roles of authority as she was let go as the professor in Hebrew and Aramaic because she couldn't be ordained as a minister or pastor with SBC.
You’ve thought a lot more about this than I have. I was just thinking of an “oasis” setting for anyone experiencing a call to ordination (or a transfer) with an opportunity to follow up later. No poaching involved-unless that’s the ongoing work of the Spirit. I can imagine some women in collars saying “.yes” a lot.
Sorry for getting into the weeds automatically. ☺️ I used to be the chair of theology at a major Christian University so I tend to automatically go into the technicalities of whether something is possible. Sorry about that.
Because I grew up in these circles (not anymore though) I know what scripture they use to assert this stance.
It is 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-12.
It’s so hard for me because although I see that the Bible says women should be quiet in church, I also know Gods heart very well. And it’s honestly confusing for me to reconcile the two on this topic.
These are the same people, however, who say God no longer speaks and that all of the gifts of the spirit are no longer active. So I can’t take anything they say with any merit.
The "historic interpretation of the word" condoned chattel slavery for 1865 years. We would be interested to hear your opinion on that.
Additionally, your argument of trying to undermine women's ordination is historically ignorant. Salvation army ordained women at its formation in 1865. Nazarene was 1908.
United Church of Christ - 1853.
Assemblies of god - 1914.
It's a pre-feminist phenomenon.
It's also grounded in a biblical hermeneutic that is at least as valid as yours. Paul's use of premogeniture in his prohibition against women teaching men and usurping authority over them, for whatever purpose he intends, stands in contradiction to Junia as an apostle (check the koine, do not try quoting the ESV), Priscilla correcting Apollos (again, the prohibition is against a woman teaching a man, not holding pastoral office nor preaching, Phoebe being mentioned as a diakonos (a title also used to refer to apostles in Acts, again, check the koine as I'm sure the ESV buried that one as well) who in the historical context would have read the epistle to the Romans aloud to her audience as well as explained its contents to an audience which would have included men, just to name a few counterfactuals to the prohibition statement.
But we get it, there's a clear statement there and obviously those are not to be disputed, nor read in a larger context. So have you given all your possessions to the poor? Have you reconciled the fact that the sheep and the goats makes no mention of justification by faith? Suddenly I'm guessing that a cohesive reading becomes a slightly more appealing concept.
You walked into this comment section with self-declared "full knowledge" of the issue and I would suspect also full knowledge that the statement of scripture being clear on this issue is a bald faced lie. Because it is. There are complimentarians who hold their convictions as a matter of conviction. You are evidently a troll who rolled into a comment section to make a spectacle of your posturing to defend the reputation of a far right weather vane who changed his "conviction" on female ordination overnight because Carl F. H. Henry hurt his feelings.
Who hurt your feelings?
And Beau, at one point some years ago, the SBC actually nullified the ordinations of women ministers it had already ratified. I wonder how the Holy Spirit felt about that one!!
"Whatever your hermeneutical convictions are, I don’t think you can look at those women and feel good about the world you’re building."
Frankly, I've NEVER felt "good" about "the world" ANY of the Protestant sects have built for themselves.
Pentecost is wonderfully inconvenient for men who think the Holy Spirit needs a denominational parking permit. “Your sons and daughters will prophesy” is not exactly subtle, but somehow the gatekeepers read it and said, “Yes, but not near the microphone.” The timing is almost performance art: while churches prepare to celebrate the Spirit falling on everyone, the SBC is trying to install a theological sprinkler system that only sprays men. At some point “biblical fidelity” starts looking suspiciously like fear of gifted women with a Bible, a voice, and no interest in asking Al Mohler for hall-pass theology.
This is the whole basis of sexism— creating an artificial wall or ceiling or what have you based on something about a person that cannot change (gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, etc) than some group makes them “less than.”
I guess I’m wonder why this is so surprising?!
The SBC has followed their MAN-DICTATED “laws” since its inception— and the men aren’t going to give up this power anytime soon — especially when the tenor of the current regime in power supports their viewpoint.
People like him make it up as they go along. Doesn't matter 'what the Bible says'; it's what he says that matters and the Bible just has to tag along, nevermind God (who of course tags along last behind the Bible).
So they lose their SBC standing? Great. Bring it on! Better out than in, and all that. If they don't want to listen to God, then we're better off without them.
Al has a fear of women who are better than him.