Jimmy Carter has recently left the Southern Baptist Convention citing the mistreatment of women as a main cause. He also states that women should be considered equal in the church. I'm suprized that the SBC didn't kick him out before he could quit for taking that stand. It was only a few months ago that an SBC bookstore pulled a christian magazine off the shelves for featuring a story about women pastors.
I wish more religious leaders would stand up for what they know is right.
Good Job Mr. President!
Hat tip to Billyist!
Big Pharma (Merck) and Vioxx: A Case Study
2 days ago
42 comments:
Oh my gosh! The SBC are living in the dark ages, aren't they?
As for Jimmy Carter, it is great that he left, but I must wonder why he stayed so long. He's pretty old by now.
I do think he rocks, though.
Ok, so JC has left the SBC, but there are still many women in Southern Baptist Churches. They must be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
I've seen women disgruntled with the way they're treated, but they stay on for the sake of their families, or because they are too deeply entrenched, or they do not even know that freedom is possible.
I've been in a SB church before, and many women keep quiet even though they are very capable. Often times, I think they just keep a low profile in order to appear respectable. Very wise.
I have been in many SBC churches, and haven't really witnessed this problem any worse than any other church I've been in. Biblically, women are equal heirs of God's grace, but are not qualified to be pastors.
The Bible is actually very misogynistic. Women in the Bible aren't equal to men in any way, they are property.
Aren't the husbands commanded to honor their wives?
What does "honor" mean in the sense it's used in the Bible? How does one "honor" property? We can see that women are thought of as property in the stories of Lot, the laws of Moses, etc.
Also, see here.
Women are not property anywhere in the Bible. Yes, the link you posted says that, but each scripture they mention is misunderstood to say what they want it to say. I won't go through them all, but you need look no farther than the third one listed. Nowhere does the Bible say you should offer virgins to be raped instead of men. Yes, Lot did this, but Lot did many things wrong. That's why there is no mention of majority of the end of his life. He screwed up in this circumstance and others.
If there are any specific scriptures on the page that you have a problem with, I'd be happy to help with those as well.
"Women are not property anywhere in the Bible. Yes, the link you posted says that, but each scripture they mention is misunderstood to say what they want it to say."
Yeah, that must be it. Whenever we find passages that are outdated and immoral, it must be because we don't have the secret decoder ring needed to understand such passages as the laws set forth. It couldn't possibly be a case of you using your modern sensibilities and inputting them back onto your ancient texts and re-interpreting.
"Nowhere does the Bible say you should offer virgins to be raped instead of men. Yes, Lot did this, but Lot did many things wrong."
Actually, the Bible makes it quite clear that god approved of Lot and his actions. god finds Lot to be a righteous man up to, during, and after offering his daughters up to the crowd.
"That's why there is no mention of majority of the end of his life. He screwed up in this circumstance and others."
Stop talking about of your backside please.
"If there are any specific scriptures on the page that you have a problem with, I'd be happy to help with those as well."
Take your pick.
Here in Northern Arkansas, we have Mennonites. I have noticed that the Mennonite women have a very strict dress code that they adhere to (floor length dresses and bonnets). The men, however, can bum out and wear jeans and t-shirts if it suits them. Standards are a little lop-sided if you ask me.
Here's a few misogynistic verses from the New Testament.
1 timothy 2:9-15
1 Corinthians 11:5-6
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Ooo thanks for the hat tip. It's much nicer to be acknowledged than to be ripped off, as I was by the examiner, but I'm not complaining. ;)
Hey, if people are reading and repeating my posts, my blog is working.
Thanks again.
Anon had to go to the third item before he could find something he could possibly refute. He most likely could not argue with the first 2 points.
On a separate note, I think it's not only the women that need deliverance, but the men. It's not in the nature of at least some men to want to rule over their wives in the manner prescribed by the bible. However, they are constrained to do so by the very words of the bible, especially for men that study the bible diligently and without bias. Such men's souls are actually tortured.
1 timothy 2:9-15
Women are not to have authority over a man. Is there a problem with this?
1 Corinthians 11:5-6
What is your problem with this verse?
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
This speaks to a specific problem in the Corinthian church. Read more of Paul's letters to them and you will see this.
1 timothy 2:9-15
Women are not to have authority over a man. Is there a problem with this?
You don't see the problem with this? You don't think this is misogynistic?
Do.. do you even have a brain?
Hello Robert,
It's been to long since I last dropped in. I will try to keep up a little better but I still have some very sick family members.
Now,
Why is Jimmy Carter "cool" for waiting 60 years to say that he has a problem with the Southern Baptist?
"Why is Jimmy Carter "cool" for waiting 60 years to say that he has a problem with the Southern Baptist?"
Did I say he was cool for waiting? Why do you guys put words in my mouth?
He's cool because he's doing something about it. How long it took him to do it, is irrelevant.
Anonymous,
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" 1 Timothy 2:13, 14, 15
You don't have a problem with this? Eve was deceived so women are inferior, but God keep them around because they can have babies? WTF?
"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." 1 Corinthians 11:5-6
WTF? Anonymous, do think think it's OK to shave a woman's head if she is caught praying with her head uncovered?
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14: 33-34
OK, so you have some apologetics to get around this one. However, this verse is used to keep women silent. I know, I have seen it used that way. The verses are not clear that this is only for the corinthian church.
In modern terms it is like saying, "If you're gonna walk around in that, you might as well walk around naked."
This isn't meaning to strip a woman who is wearing little. It is an exhortation to remain covered up.
"This isn't meaning to strip a woman who is wearing little. It is an exhortation to remain covered up."
Yeah, dem wimmins shud be in the kitchen, barefoot and preggers and makin me a sammich by golly.
Robert Madewell said...
"Why is Jimmy Carter "cool" for waiting 60 years to say that he has a problem with the Southern Baptist?"
Did I say he was cool for waiting? Why do you guys put words in my mouth?
He's cool because he's doing something about it. How long it took him to do it, is irrelevant.
Maybe you should make your self clear and then you wouldn't be misunderstood. Now please tell me of the "horrible" treatment that women in the SBC are recieving? Please be specific.
Anonymous...
In modern terms it is like saying, "If you're gonna walk around in that, you might as well walk around naked."
This isn't meaning to strip a woman who is wearing little. It is an exhortation to remain covered up.
Except it says "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." This specifically means to shave her head or force her to cover it, so your "modern terms" comparison was inadequate.
Mark Morrison...
Maybe you should make your self clear and then you wouldn't be misunderstood.
Maybe you should get your head out of your ass.
Mark,
http://mondoglobo.wftk.org/blog/qa/2008/09/southern-baptist-bookstore-cha.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/baptistssouthernbaptists/a/baptistwomen.htm
eth-
My modern equivalent is exactly the kind of statement this was.
Anonymous, except you left out the part about either covering them up or stripping them down completely. So, no, your comparison was inadequate.
ethinethin said...
Mark Morrison...
Maybe you should make your self clear and then you wouldn't be misunderstood.
Maybe you should get your head out of your ass.
Wow, all that from a simple question. Mature response, so much for free thinking.
Robert,
I looked at the links you posted and expected to find some horror story. But instead I find a story about the SBC pulling a magazine because they don't agree with women being pastor's. And another saying wives must submit to their husbands. Oh the horror of it all... Sorry my sarcastic side came out.
Didn't you once scold me for the old copy and paste? Well at least you did link it out,so you get points for that. For every story that you post about someone being mistreated I can post one about women being praised for their roles in the Church. Let's cut to the chase, what is YOUR take on it.
Sorry, Mark. No offense, but I hate christians. It's nothing personal.
But I guess what I was implying was that no-one who had their head in the upright position and read Robert's original post would have any trouble understanding what he was saying. It was clear as day.
ethinethin said...
Sorry, Mark. No offense, but I hate christians. It's nothing personal.
But I guess what I was implying was that no-one who had their head in the upright position and read Robert's original post would have any trouble understanding what he was saying. It was clear as day.
No offense taken,why the hatred of Christians ?
Oh by the way I like your pic. Calvin has always been "cool".
Why would you think that discrimination is a good thing Mark? Maybe, we should take away women's rights to vote or to work outside of the home, too.
That last article was about much more than just wives submitting to their husbands. Didn't you catch the wording that implied that women should be concerned with raising babies more than church leadership? Come on, Mark. If women are going to be equals spiritually, why are they not allowed to have leadership roles in SBC other than sunday school teacher and piano player?
Mark, pulling a magazine from the shelves tells me alot. For one thing it is censorship. SBC doesn't allow women pastors so they're going to hide the fact that other churches do allow it. I guess they don't want any of their women reading the article and "gettin' idears". Any time a church tries to hide something from the public, there's a skeleton there to be sure.
Also, I have personal experience to draw from. My mother has only learned to drive in the last 5 years. Only, because my father can't drive anymore because he has lost his eyesight. My father micromanaged her etire life. And he did it thinking that he was doing what God wanted him to do. Granted, they're not SBC, but they have very similar doctrines.
Mark said, "Didn't you once scold me for the old copy and paste?"
I scolded you for plagiarism. You use to post entire articles on your blog that were copy and pasted from apologetic websites with absolutely no credit or links to the original document. I have never bitched about anyone linking to articles that they wanted me to read. As a matter of fact, that's what I'd rather them do (especially in emails). Instead of reading butt ugly plain email-text, I'd rather read it off of a quality (debatable in some cases) website. There's nothing wrong in referencing other articles. I do that all the time.
"Mature response, so much for free thinking."
Non sequitor.
Did you ever consider that we're not all obliged to argue under the same unwritten rulebook?
"Did you ever consider that we're not all obliged to argue under the same unwritten rulebook?"
No, because the rulebook is empirically derived. But, hey, I'll take this as your admission that god believe is inherently illogical and irrational. Thanks.
Okay, we'll take that. While belief in God can be obtained via logic of some sort, trusting in Him for your salvation definitely is an act of faith. Never would argue that point.
"While belief in God can be obtained via logic of some sort, trusting in Him for your salvation definitely is an act of faith."
Reading comprehenshun, you can not haz.
The whole point of what I just said was that you've admitted that you can't get to god belief through reason and logic. Don't claim that I said otherwise. You can not use logic to get to god. You must invariably use logical fallacy in order to get to god belief, meaning it is inherently irrational and illogical. Do not try to put words in my mouth or change my words.
The subjugation of women is well documented in Fundamentalist and Evangelical Churches.
It is taught from the pulpit, written about in books, and mirrored in the lives of millions of families.
The highest calling for a woman? Married and a mother (akin to barefoot and pregnant) or a single missionary serving under a man in a foreign country.
Women need to let us guys do the real work, or so goes the argument.
I applaud Carter for his stand on this issue. A little late, but better late than never.
Bruce
Thanks for the reply Robert.
Your not serious about the whole discrimination thing are you? How can it be considered discrimination if people freely submit to the rules of an organization? Last time I checked people were free to come and go as they please. Would you not agree with that?
As for pulling the magazine it didn't fit in with the SBC docturine. Sorry again but it's their right.
Bruce the Agnostic said...
The subjugation of women is well documented in Fundamentalist and Evangelical Churches.
It is taught from the pulpit, written about in books, and mirrored in the lives of millions of families.
The highest calling for a woman? Married and a mother (akin to barefoot and pregnant) or a single missionary serving under a man in a foreign country.
Women need to let us guys do the real work, or so goes the argument.
I applaud Carter for his stand on this issue. A little late, but better late than never.
Bruce
Hello Bruce,
Not sure where you guys have been hanging out but your views are both inaccurate and biased. I have been attending a SBC Church for many years and have never seen or heard of "let's keep'em barefoot and pregant" stance that you seem to think we embrace. Women hold positions in our Church and are encouraged to participate. The same can be said for the Association we are in. As I told Robert, people are free to come and go as they please. So the whole "we are keeping the women down" thing is nothing more than a joke.
Mark
Mark,
Pastored a few Baptist Churches in my time, including with the Southern Baptists.
Enjoy your delusion.While I am certain there are anecdotal exceptions, fact is, women are second class citizen in many Baptist Churches. With the SBC they are second class citizens according to the Baptist Faith and Message.
They are free to leave? Sure they are if their husband will let them.
Bruce
Mark,
Do you really believe there are no social or cultural issues at play in many Southern Baptist Churches that result in women being second class members of the Church?
It is these social and cultural issues than keep women in the pew and silent. Given the cover of twisted Bible verses demanding submission to men, women keep silent in Church. Unwilling to be ostracized they suffer silently.
Bruce the Agnostic said...
Mark,
Do you really believe there are no social or cultural issues at play in many Southern Baptist Churches that result in women being second class members of the Church?
It is these social and cultural issues than keep women in the pew and silent. Given the cover of twisted Bible verses demanding submission to men, women keep silent in Church. Unwilling to be ostracized they suffer silently.
Bruce,
Yes,as a matter of fact that is exactly what I believe. I can honestly sit here and say in the Churchs that I have either visited or attended I have never felt or witnessed such actions. We have women as worship leader and youth minister at our Church. So you see I also speak from experience.
Post a Comment