Well, I'm in trouble now...

[jeolmstead]

I’m sorry T, It is sad that the enemy would seek to steal your joy re: your trip. I for one am very proud of you. You are an amazing young women and full of the Holy Spirit. And as much as one can be across the internet you are my friend. You have bank with me, therefore, I trust you did the right thing!

I only wish I could have been there to hear it!

Religion seems right, but it is dull and dead. Those who have obtained their seats by following its demands will never accept those who have strolled through the open gate of grace and found their seat in the Father’s lap. They will hate you because you have freely found the place that all their good work could not procure for them.

Don’t leave mad, and beware any root of bitterness that might try to spring up. Bless these men and if you can find something nice to say about them say that. And having done that, shake the dust off your feet as you go!

Cat and I are praying for you! We know God has good things for those who are faithful to Him above all.

Remember that Paul in his day was not the father of the faith, he was just the crazy guy locked up in chains. The same men who have tried to dishonor your beautiful sacrifice are the same ones who dishonored him.

Rejoice! You are in good company!


John O.

 

[ARBITER01]

I'm sure you knew at some point you would confront such a situation with this denomination.

It's their loss, move on. I don't say that to raise pride up in you at all, just that you are more talented than they deserve, and you should be carefully confident in that, enough to be independent of them and churches like them.

Draw closer to GOD now, so that HE can anoint you in power for that ministry. It wasn't just in words for Jesus, hint, hint.

 

[GrapeGirl]

From one rebellious woman to another, that was just a rebellious woman thing to do. Or at least thats the way it appears. You shouldn't have taken their money and represented them as a church and then gone and done what you know they don't want you doing.

You knew they wouldn't approve and you did it anyway. You put a stumbling block in front of your "weaker brother", so to speak. And now want to gasp at their reaction. And everyone else here who agrees with you in your choice of actions in this situation is just throwing a blanket over your nakedness and shameful behavior...just like Noah's sons did to him when he was drunk and passed out on the floor.

Of course this situation begs of an answer to the question "was anybody saved" or healed....or delivered.... if so, then you obeyed God rather than man. If not....then you are just another rebellious woman.

Rae

 

[NacDan]

Talk about grasping at straws!

Martin Luther worked for years as a minister in the church, a doctor of theology and a recognized theologian. He wrote numerous letters to his superiors about their use on indulgences in the church and a gospel that was not based on Grace.

Tamara is a lay leader who went on a missions trip and did something that she knew the elders of the church disapproved of.

They sanctioned her going
They supported her financially
They had no problem with her doing the ladies conference.

So, the problem isn't with a very gifted lady ministering. It was a very gifted lady ministering in a venue that the elders of her church don't think is appropriate. Tamara by her own words knew this was a tension point and something they did not want her to do.

But she went ahead and did it anyway. And then didn't tell anyone in leadership, but they had to find out through Facebook entries.

I think Tamara is a very gifted person that has the rights and gifting to preach the Word as she knows it. I have no issue with that.

Openly doing what you know is deemed inappropriate is wrong.

The word is "rebellion".

When one knowingly and willingly does what they know goes against the teaching of those in authority over them they are by defintion rebellious.

I agree that the issue is not whether a woman should be allowed to preach or not (but why don't we start THAT thread...) , but whether or not Tamara was correct in doing it at that appointed time and place.

The majority of the "PRO" comments are coming from people that believe the leaders of the SBC Tamara is a member of are Neanderthals that should go back to the Stone Age and have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do. Am I to understand that whenever we disagree with our pastors or leaders we are to just do what we want to do anyway? Isn't THAT post-modernism? Can all of us decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong?

I knew as I was reading through this thread that someone was going to quote Acts 5:29. If we are going to use this one verse to form doctrine, then why can't we use another verse to form another doctrine? And if so, was Tamara rebellious when she joined the SBC (because surely GOD didn't call her to that church when they were obviously wrong in their doctrines and teachings) or when she went against their teachings? Which time did she rebel against God? Did God not put her in THAT assembly?

I am finding out the hard way that sometimes God puts us in places that in our more enlightened minds is obviously a mistake, only to find out over time that there's a reason He put us there. Sometimes we must submit rather than follow our own muse.

Tamara has confessed that she knew the position of her assembly and chose to do what she did. The fact of the matter is that when you accept membership in an assembly (i.e. join the church), you agree to their terms of membership.

Recently our church body revised their bylaws and statement of faith. They made copies available for about a month ahead of time. I picked one up and then picked it apart. I just about drove our associate pastor up the wall with all my questions. He told me..."Between you and Lee we're going to have to completely rewrite this entire document".

Did I get it written exactly the way I wanted? No., of course not, however, I will not go against church doctrine if I am teaching (implied or otherwise) with this assembly. If I want to debate a doctrine, there are other times and places for that.

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
(Heb 13:17 ESV)

Why is it that people cannot honestly read the Scriptures and come up with the doctrine that a woman cannot preach in India while on a mission's trip sponsored in whole or in part by a church who is a member of a conference whose doctrine states that she cannot as a presbeuo do that?

It behooves me to understand why one cannot comprehend that everyone in "authority" does not understand and believe as I do. Do any of us believe 100% our assemby's published statement of belief and subsequent writings?

Comparing this act to the Reformation is preposterous. One thing about it, however, is Martin Luther was willing to leave the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm guessing that since I couldn't stand to wait till the end of the thread to post that this matter probably has already worked itself out.

Grace 'n peace
Danny

 

[imperfectchristian]

This quote comes to mind.

"It is easier to find guides, someone to tell you what to do, than someone to be with you in a discerning, prayerful companionship as you work it out yourself. This is what spiritual direction is." — Eugene H. Peterson

 

[Tamara224]

The word is "rebellion".

When one knowingly and willingly does what they know goes against the teaching of those in authority over them they are by defintion rebellious.

I agree that the issue is not whether a woman should be allowed to preach or not (but why don't we start THAT thread...) , but whether or not Tamara was correct in doing it at that appointed time and place.

The majority of the "PRO" comments are coming from people that believe the leaders of the SBC Tamara is a member of are Neanderthals that should go back to the Stone Age and have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do. Am I to understand that whenever we disagree with our pastors or leaders we are to just do what we want to do anyway? Isn't THAT post-modernism? Can all of us decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong?

I knew as I was reading through this thread that someone was going to quote Acts 5:29. If we are going to use this one verse to form doctrine, then why can't we use another verse to form another doctrine? And if so, was Tamara rebellious when she joined the SBC (because surely GOD didn't call her to that church when they were obviously wrong in their doctrines and teachings) or when she went against their teachings? Which time did she rebel against God? Did God not put her in THAT assembly?

I am finding out the hard way that sometimes God puts us in places that in our more enlightened minds is obviously a mistake, only to find out over time that there's a reason He put us there. Sometimes we must submit rather than follow our own muse.

Tamara has confessed that she knew the position of her assembly and chose to do what she did. The fact of the matter is that when you accept membership in an assembly (i.e. join the church), you agree to their terms of membership.

Recently our church body revised their bylaws and statement of faith. They made copies available for about a month ahead of time. I picked one up and then picked it apart. I just about drove our associate pastor up the wall with all my questions. He told me..."Between you and Lee we're going to have to completely rewrite this entire document".

Did I get it written exactly the way I wanted? No., of course not, however, I will not go against church doctrine if I am teaching (implied or otherwise) with this assembly. If I want to debate a doctrine, there are other times and places for that.



Why is it that people cannot honestly read the Scriptures and come up with the doctrine that a woman cannot preach in India while on a mission's trip sponsored in whole or in part by a church who is a member of a conference whose doctrine states that she cannot as a presbeuo do that?

It behooves me to understand why one cannot comprehend that everyone in "authority" does not understand and believe as I do. Do any of us believe 100% our assemby's published statement of belief and subsequent writings?

Comparing this act to the Reformation is preposterous. One thing about it, however, is Martin Luther was willing to leave the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm guessing that since I couldn't stand to wait till the end of the thread to post that this matter probably has already worked itself out.

Grace 'n peace
Danny

Well, thanks for your thoughts, Danny. Although, to be perfectly honest, I don't really get what point you're trying to make. It feels rather that you think I did wrong and somehow or other it's your place to tell me what my motives and attitude are instead of letting me tell you those things.

I realize that posting a thread about my personal life on the internet is kind of begging for people to criticize me and my choices.

But....well, you sure jumped right in there, didn't you?

Believe whatever you want about me. You will anyway. I'm not going to defend myself anymore. I've explained my thinking and my actions. (I know that may come across wrong on the internet - with tone and stuff, but truly, I am not fussed, just don't feel like rehashing my motives over and over again).

I still believe this whole situation was a God thing. He led me, He directed my steps. There is purpose in all of it.

 

[Strong in Him]

Tamara has confessed that she knew the position of her assembly and chose to do what she did.

Not that I want to make a massive issue of this, but Tamara did say;

I didn't know that they opposed women preaching while on a mission trip. I was aware (from previous incidents) that they do not allow women to teach men in Sunday School or Bible study type situations.

In other words, she was aware that they were opposed to women preaching/teaching in some situations, but was not aware that that applied on the mission field - away from the church. And it seems that the church leaders knew her views on women preachers, but still allowed/chose her to go on this trip anyway.
AND it was the pastor in India who asked, or requested, that she talk to them.

So personally, I think "rebellion" is a bit strong.

Though as Tamara says, it's happened. She wasn't asking for approval or advice about what to do - just sharing her experiance with us.

Have you been looking for another fellowship, Tamara? I pray God will bless and guide you in your thinking.

 

[probinson]

Not that I want to make a massive issue of this, but Tamara did say;

In other words, she was aware that they were opposed to women preaching/teaching in some situations, but was not aware that that applied on the mission field - away from the church. And it seems that the church leaders knew her views on women preachers, but still allowed/chose her to go on this trip anyway.

I'm reminded of the episode of the Brady Bunch where Greg was punished by not being allowed to drive his parent's car, so he decides to drive his friend's car instead, rationalizing that his punishment was specifically not to drive his parent's car. He convinced himself that what he was doing was OK because his parent's "exact words" were that he could not drive their car.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Tamara's action rebellious, but I do find it hard to believe that she wouldn't know how her church would react. I don't know what I would have done were I in the same situation, but I think I'd surely know that the church would disapprove based on prior experiences with them.

In any event, I think it's a sad commentary on the state of the modern church that this discussion even has to take place. It is for this church to discard Tamara's giftings and essentially say "we have no need of you" to tell her that she can not preach.

 

[_Sonnie]

I've personally attended (and am currently attending) a church that doesn't allow women to teach men in the church, but they allow it on the mission field. I don't understand how they make that distinction, but they do. Therefore I can understand why someone wouldn't know they'd have a problem with it on the mission field.

 

[Tamara224]

I wouldn't go so far as to call Tamara's action rebellious, but I do find it hard to believe that she wouldn't know how her church would react. I don't know what I would have done were I in the same situation, but I think I'd surely know that the church would disapprove based on prior experiences with them.

I wasn't surprised by their reaction. Not really. I knew this disagreement would eventually be an issue, but I didn't expect this particular event to be the spark that lit the fuse. Nor did I expect it to blow up so quickly.

To be perfectly honest, I was a little worried that I'd get in trouble for the theme and content of my lessons on women in the Bible that I taught to the Indian women. The associate pastor who went on the trip had several times warned me to expect the Indian people to be offended by my teaching and said "just stick to the Bible and then it's Scripture that offends." As it turns out, the Indian people - men and women alike - were eager for my message of equality and freedom. It was the American pastor who got offended by it.

In any event, I think it's a sad commentary on the state of the modern church that this discussion even has to take place. It is for this church to discard Tamara's giftings and essentially say "we have no need of you" to tell her that she can not preach.

 

[lismore]

The word is "rebellion".

The big question is who is actually obeying the voice of the Lord and who is disobeying in this situation.

If it was the Lord's plan for Tamara to speak, then the church that rebuked her is actually in rebellion against the Lord.

You can't be in rebellion against wrongdoing, if you're standing for the right you will never stand in rebellion or stand alone.

 

[SharonL]

The big question is who is actually obeying the voice of the Lord and who is disobeying in this situation.

If it was the Lord's plan for Tamara to speak, then the church that rebuked her is actually in rebellion against the Lord.

You can't be in rebellion against wrongdoing, if you're standing for the right you will never stand in rebellion or stand alone.

 

[ARBITER01]

The big question is who is actually obeying the voice of the Lord and who is disobeying in this situation.

If it was the Lord's plan for Tamara to speak, then the church that rebuked her is actually in rebellion against the Lord.

You can't be in rebellion against wrongdoing, if you're standing for the right you will never stand in rebellion or stand alone.

Exactly.

I don't know where the few self-righteous folks in the thread thought that the body of Christ is somehow our slave-owner, but they are not.

A person led by The Spirit of The Lord is never rebellious.

 

[JimB]

The big question is who is actually obeying the voice of the Lord and who is disobeying in this situation.

If it was the Lord's plan for Tamara to speak, then the church that rebuked her is actually in rebellion against the Lord.

You can't be in rebellion against wrongdoing, if you're standing for the right you will never stand in rebellion or stand alone.

Interesting point, Lis. While I believe that we should submit to one another, especially to those in (official) authority, there is a scripture that instructs those in authority not to be “lords over those entrusted to them” (1 Peter 5.1-3). IMO, the subjugation of women—half the working force of God’s kingdom—is counterproductive and a violation of God’s Word.

Having said that, I believe it is wise for anyone who disagrees with church policy—rightly or wrongly—to resign their membership from that group. My wife and I did that about fifteen years ago over the issue of whether a woman could serve as a deacon in the church or not. We were sorely outnumbered by those who felt women should remain in subjugation to men and we left the church (and eventually the denomination) after that meeting. The funny thing was, the church was founded seventy years prior to that by a (gasp!) woman preacher whose photograph was in their trophy case in the foyer. I remember saying, “Do you mean to tell me that Sister A________, the founder of this congregation and its first pastor was not qualified to sit on your church board?” I suggested they hide her picture in a drawer somewhere. Another paradox was that while there were not enough qualified men in the church to sit on the seven-member board, there were more than enough qualified women who could have served. I wondered then, and still wonder, why any church would cripple itself by ignoring God-given leadership (like Anna, Mary Magdalene, Dorcas, Lydia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Philip’s daughters, Nympha, and Lois and Eunice) right under their lofty noses only because they did not have hair on their chest. BTW, all of the aforementioned women were obvious leaders within their respective churches. Anyhow, the whole episode was a very disillusioning experience for us.

As for the denomination, even though they ordained women and allowed them to serve as pastors, women were still pretty much suppressed by men. I cannot recall a solitary woman ever serving as presbyter or on the district or general presbytery of the denomination.

~Jim

Love God. ​

Love people. ​

Period. ​

​

 

[Mixolydian]

I wholeheartedly agree with Jim and Lis. I always found it interesting that the 1Cor14 quote of Paul that has women being quiet in church is immediately preceded by Paul outlining how a "church service" should run, i.e, tongues, interpretations, prophesies, words, etc, and is addressed directly to Paul's brothers AND sisters.

 

[lismore]

Having said that, I believe it is wise for anyone who disagrees with church policy—rightly or wrongly—to resign their membership from that group.

In many churches, many but not all, the membership decide and vote on what church policy will be. Church policy is what the membership believe it should be. In such circumtances would not the Lord send people in to change church policy, if indeed it needs to be changed?

Sometimes it's good to have members who will put a spanner in the works. If not, some denominations would probably still be killing witches.

 

[franky67]

Interesting point, Lis. While I believe that we should submit to one another, especially to those in (official) authority, there is a scripture that instructs those in authority not to be “lords over those entrusted to them” (1 Peter 5.1-3). IMO, the subjugation of women—half the working force of God’s kingdom—is counterproductive and a violation of God’s Word.

Having said that, I believe it is wise for anyone who disagrees with church policy—rightly or wrongly—to resign their membership from that group. My wife and I did that about fifteen years ago over the issue of whether a woman could serve as a deacon in the church or not. We were sorely outnumbered by those who felt women should remain in subjugation to men and we left the church (and eventually the denomination) after that meeting. The funny thing was, the church was founded seventy years prior to that by a (gasp!) woman preacher whose photograph was in their trophy case in the foyer. I remember saying, “Do you mean to tell me that Sister A________, the founder of this congregation and its first pastor was not qualified to sit on your church board?” I suggested they hide her picture in a drawer somewhere. Another paradox was that while there were not enough qualified men in the church to sit on the seven-member board, there were more than enough qualified women who could have served. I wondered then, and still wonder, why any church would cripple itself by ignoring God-given leadership (like Anna, Mary Magdalene, Dorcas, Lydia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Philip’s daughters, Nympha, and Lois and Eunice) right under their lofty noses only because they did not have hair on their chest. BTW, all of the aforementioned women were obvious leaders within their respective churches. Anyhow, the whole episode was a very disillusioning experience for us.

As for the denomination, even though they ordained women and allowed them to serve as pastors, women were still pretty much suppressed by men. I cannot recall a solitary woman ever serving as presbyter or on the district or general presbytery of the denomination.

~Jim

Love God.
Love people.
Period. ​

Tradition spans centuries, it's flesh, and flesh and Spirit mix like oil and water.

Jesus never gave so much as a hint that he regarded women as inferior, so what have the church leaders and theologians done over the centuries? They have taken their "bible truths" from the experiences of men rather than the teachings of God's Son.

 

[AudioArtist]

I agree with all you guys are saying, and I've read quite a bit of stuff dealing with Paul's statements in his letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy in regards to women - but how do YOU personal deal with such verses?

 

[lismore]

I agree with all you guys are saying, and I've read quite a bit of stuff dealing with Paul's statements in his letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy in regards to women - but how do YOU personal deal with such verses?

I think the OP is bigger than the issue of women speaking.

Tamarra feels the Lord opened a door and prompted her to preach. Now some church leaders have said in effect that it was wrong for her to obey God.

The question is who are we trying to please, God or men?

Galatians 1:10
Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Nobody wakes up one morning and says 'I wonder what I'll do today, I think I'll take on a church!'. No, it's because what the church teaches and what God says are sometimes on a collision course. You cannot always submit both to the church and to God.

As Peter said 'We must obey God rather than men!'

If you obey Jesus Christ then sooner or later you will be persecuted, even by those who call themselves Christians.

 

[ARBITER01]

I agree with all you guys are saying, and I've read quite a bit of stuff dealing with Paul's statements in his letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy in regards to women - but how do YOU personal deal with such verses?

Here is the section of Corinthians without the disputed passage in it..

1Co 14:27 If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn; and let one interpret:

1Co 14:28 but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

1Co 14:29 And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern.

1Co 14:30 But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence.

1Co 14:31 For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted;

1Co 14:32 and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;

14:33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace; as in all the churches of the saints.

1Co 14:36 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?

1Co 14:37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.

1Co 14:38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

1Co 14:39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

1Co 14:40 But let all things be done decently and in order.

The subject doesn't change abruptly.

Additionally, where in the law of Moses does it address women not speaking? It doesn't. The Talmud does,..

“A woman’s voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative” (Talmud, Berachot 24a).

“Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent” (summary of Talmudic sayings).

The Talmud Called the Voice of a Woman “Shameful”

“It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men” (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)

“The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness” (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)

Besides, we are not bound by the law of Moses in Christianity, and certainly not any man-made religious Jewish laws.

It's a personal choice, I see it for what it is, a marginal interpolation that made it's way into the text very early, that needs to be removed.