Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to further communicate with you.
First, let me say that I do not forward correspondence from any pastor or staff member who has written me.
Second, each person at BGCT answers for themselves. I have no idea what they think today other than what I see and read.
Why on earth would I make the case for homosexuals “being recognized in the church as human beings capable of hearing the call of God in their lives and responding to that call?” My website is about WOMEN. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Nowhere will you find anything anywhere on my website that even hints at such a ridiculous notion. That is a SBC tactic that is used against women, and you were true to that tactic. I am disappointed, but not surprised.
You have one brush to tar women with and that is the brush of homosexuality. Do you also tar men with the same brush of sexual impurity?
- What if I said that experience teaches me that male pastors are guilty of incest? My former pastor is in prison right now for molesting his granddaughters.
- What if I said that male pastors are adulterers? A pastor of a large church near Houston was caught by the deacons in an inappropriate relationship with a woman he was counseling.
- What if I said that male pastors are guilty of pedophilia? Many pastors of Catholic churches have been accused of that.
- What if I said that male pastors kill their wives? A Baptist pastor was sentenced in Waco for killing his wife.
- What if I said that male pastors molest females? A male Baptist pastor I knew “touched” two girls at Astroworld.
- What if I said that male pastors are homosexuals? A pastor of a large Baptist church in Houston made advances at one of his male church members.
- What if I said that male pastors are addicted to pornography? This is a subject talked about as a problem right now. (Added today. See Randy Robertson and his strippers, pastor of FBC Anardarka, Oklahoma).
I reread your sentence “What about men who some churches say are not above reproach, the husband of one wife, or cannot teach? What about those guys?” I have no idea what you are talking about.
Submission IS giving headship or lordship over the total of women’s lives. If everything she does has to be filtered through the lens of “am I submitting to my husband” then it doesn’t make any difference what the SBC theologians and Confessions confirm or deny. It is just a fact. Her husband is in control of her life.
Now come on, Pastor. Your scripture reference about weak women is beneath you. That scripture also goes on to say that women are “burdened by sins and led astray by various passions.” Surely you can call me misguided but calling me a woman burdened by sin is a bit much, don’t you think?
Multiple wives. Anything you and I know comes from what we have read about the past because we weren’t there. So we have to take someone’s word for it. I lean on what Dr. James Denison says in the following paragraph. Many Mormons have multiple wives, according to what I read and see in the news. Missionaries encounter this in African countries. Muslims can have 4 wives at a time.(Dr. James Denison writes – How can a woman be the “husband of one wife”? At the heart of the issue is the phrase, “the husband of but one wife.” When Park Cities discussed whether or not to ordain divorced men as deacons, you considered this phrase in depth. As you may recall, the Greek is best translated literally, “a one-wife-at-a-time man,” speaking to the issue of polygamy rather than divorce. Paul was concerned here about the public witness of deacons. In his day, divorce was tragically common and not typically seen as damaging to one’s witness. But polygamy, while also common, was very destructive to Christian witness and example. And so Paul condemned polygamy for deacons, not divorce. Given that this phrase refers to polygamy, it is clear that Paul would need to apply it only to male deacons. Women were not permitted to marry more than one husband. Thus, there would be no reason for the apostle to forbid women deacons from polygamy. And so he addressed only male deacons in this regard.
Yes, they are literalists when it comes to women, and you know that. They read every scripture literally English word for English word when it suits them. The Danvers Statement even addresses this in #9 when they say “the consequent threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity; In other words, an ordinary person sitting in the pews must pick up their Bible and read it English word for English word and get the English meaning from those words.
Pastor, I am as honest as I can be about the Scripture. You and I disagree with the position on women and I don’t think for a moment you will change your mind. But I do ask you to understand that it is not with hatred that I write. If my position and writing is hatred, what do you think I see in yours and others who write against women? Surely you must know that that is “hatred” to me.