Report: Women ministers gaining ground in Baptist life

Ignoring the rules of the analogical literary device might be common but it certainly does make sense. Perhaps such people need a large dose of common sense to put them on track to utilizing such rules so they may not find themselves offended for no genuine reason.

Of course, Alex. The problem is the people who wonder why Bob used “dogs” as an “analogical literary device” in a conversation about women.

[Larry]

Ignoring the rules of the analogical literary device might be common but it certainly does make sense. Perhaps such people need a large dose of common sense to put them on track to utilizing such rules so they may not find themselves offended for no genuine reason.

Of course, Alex. The problem is the people who wonder why Bob used “dogs” as an “analogical literary device” in a conversation about women.

If the case was one of it being an analogy about women one might have a complaint but the analogy is about the inappropriateness of women as Ministers and not, as you say, about women in particular. The comparison, again, is about two inappropriate contexts (a principle or belief), not a person. It is true that to appreciate this nuance requires a certain literary finesse and not everyone possesses this but that is not the fault of the analogy (or its author) but the reader’s own handicap.

This reminds me much of President Obama being chided for the use “lipstick on a pig” in referring to McCain and Palin’s campaign with some charging him of calling one or both a “pig”. Of course most people were, again, popularly ignorant of such analogical speech since Obama was using the device to refer to MaCain and Palin’s proposed policies. It was a swipe at an idea, a principle and had nothing to do with their person.

I doubt any more exchanges are going to convince one another on this particular point and the topic of the OP does await our interest. And to the OP Susan made a great observation about the article.

No biblical references. Wow.

Since you are good with analogical literary devices, you will understand when I say you are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel alongside of putting lipstick on a pig.

Why is it so hard to simply say Bob chose a bad place to use that “analogical literary device”?

I regret that my earlier comment (#12) makes it look as though I have a dog in this fight. [groan]

I was not offended by the attempted analogy and I do not think that women should be pastors. However, I didn’t make that clear in my original comment. I should have followed the advice of that ancient rhetorician, Quintilian, who said “One should not aim at being possible to understand, but at being impossible to misunderstand.”

[Larry] Since you are good with analogical literary devices, you will understand when I say you are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel alongside of putting lipstick on a pig.

Why is it so hard to simply say Bob chose a bad place to use that “analogical literary device”?

Your calling Bob a gnat, a camel and a pig certainly isn’t doing anyone any good, now is it? :)

So, I have tried to provide a gracious exit from this sidebar to the OP and will (in spite of your tugging here) try again. So let’s leave this disagreement with which we will not come to a singular view together and focus on the OP, okay? That’s not so hard, is it?

I was Googling “women in Baptist history” and came across http://www.baptisthistory.org/womeninbaptistlife.htm this blog entry by H. Leon McBeth, “professor of church history, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary”. The total extent to which Scriptures were considered is encapsulated in these paragraphs-

“What does the Bible say?” That question is and has always been vitally important for Southern Baptists. For us the teachings of the Bible have been determinative, and still are. For the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists, a clear word of Scripture settles any question of faith or practice among us.

However, not all words from the Bible are equally clear. We read that women are to keep silent in the church, but we are not sure whether it means in that social setting or for all time to come. We have competent and dedicated Southern Baptist Bible scholars who genuinely believe that the New Testament forbids women to exercise a teaching or ministerial role in the church. We have other equally competent and dedicated Bible scholars who believe that the New Testament, properly interpreted, does not disqualify women from being called of God and of fulfilling that call in positions of ministry in the church. So it is not a question of whether one believes the Bible, but of how we understand the Bible.

The affirmation that parts of the Bible address local situations while others give authoritative teachings for all times and places leaves many Southern Baptists uncomfortable, myself among them. How do we determine what is timely and what is timeless? My perspective, need I remind you, is that of a historian, not a biblical scholar. At times in our history, most Southern Baptists interpreted the Bible to justify slavery.7 We no longer understand the Bible that way. Has the Bible changed? No. What has changed then? Our understanding of the Bible has changed over the years.

Southern Baptist women, generally speaking, do cut their hair, wear jewelry and expensive clothing, and go to church and sometimes pray aloud without a hat or head covering, all of which seem to be forbidden by some passages in the New Testament
(see especially 1 Pet. 3:3 and 1 Cor. 11:3-7). Most Southern Baptists, whether or not they would express it this way, assume that these instructions applied to some local situation the apostle was addressing, but they do not feel obligated to observe them today. Has the Bible changed? No. Our interpretation of the Bible has changed.

The person today who assumes that Bible teachings on the role of women in the church are clear and unequivocal is either incredibly naive or else is not taking the text of the Bible seriously.

The rest of it charges men with fear and ignorance as to the reasons why women are not more involved in ministry leadership.

That’s too bad, Susan. McBeth has written some phenomenal historical material on the Baptist church. I am saddened when I hear people who claim they are not theologians take theological positions. This inevitably leads to trouble.