The Southern Baptist Convention is preparing to vote on a proposed constitutional ban on churches with women pastors.
From its towering white steeple and red-brick facade to its Sunday services filled with rousing gospel hymns and evangelistic sermons, First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia, bears many of the classic hallmarks of a Southern Baptist church.
On a recent Sunday, its pastor for women and children, Kim Eskridge, urged members to invite friends and neighbors to an upcoming vacation Bible school — a perennial Baptist activity — to help “reach families in the community with the gospel.”
But because that pastor is a woman, First Baptist’s days in the Southern Baptist Convention may be numbered.
At the SBC’s annual meeting June 11-12 in Indianapolis, representatives will vote on whether to amend the denomination’s constitution to essentially ban churches with any women pastors — and not just in the top job. That measure received overwhelming approval in a preliminary vote last year.
As an atheist I don’t have skin in the game either way.
You do, because religious extremists constantly use their texts as an excuse for why they have to support certain legislation.
Everyone that say they have to be against abortion or LGBT people existing because their Sky Daddy said to, also think other stuff like what you quoted needs to be law too.
They just know they don't have the political power yet.
But if they could, they'd push for women to not be allowed to hold office, have a management position, or even vote.
This 100% effects all of us, regardless of if we believe in their Sky Daddy.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
-Matthew 5:17
Christians interpret this as stating they don’t need to follow the Old Testament rules as Jesus has fulfilled them and has established a new covenant with his death on the cross.
In my experience growing up southern baptist Christians only bring up that interpretation when convenient. The Old Testament is completely valid when they want it to be, and invalid when they don't.
Christians interpret this as stating they don’t need to follow the Old Testament rules
Except for stuff like Leviticus 18:22 (the oft quoted anti-gay one) ofc.
Religious hypocrites will say the bible says X about things and pick some vaguely related verse or story to justify it. From the Curse of Ham justifying slavery to Leviticus 19:19 being used to justify miscegenation laws.
Which is a really weird interpretation considering the very next sentence in Matthew 5:18:
"18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Paul, or rather the amalgamation of Paul and the various authors of the texts canonized as the Pauline epistles, was a fuckin' dickman of his place and time, and including the letters in the Bible really fucked up Christianity over the long-term.
Much of the laws in the epistles (letters that make up the bulk of the New Testament) are cultural, related to their time in the Roman Empire. This is why plenty of churches feel comfortable saying women can be pastors, gay people are totally fine, etc.
Just not the loud, shitty ones that make all the news and try to force their religious restrictions down the throats of others.
Why does that Bible have restrictions on textile blends? I can rationalize most of the others as generalized health restrictions but that one baffles me.
As a side note, how in the fuck are you supposed to feel any spiritual connection in a space like the one pictured? It looks like a goddamned Costco. I'm not religious, but I absolutely get the vibe when I'm in a proper church. This is not that.
If your group is actively wondering if it's a good idea to treat women like everyone else in the group... Maybe, just maybe, youre on the wrong side of history.
One of my favorite pieces of the Bible is the Parable of the Talents where Jesus tells a story about three men who are given different sums of money. The first two are given more. They do stuff with it and are rewarded. The guy who gets the least buries it in a field and is punished.
It's often used an an example of stewardship, and regularly used as an excuse to not give drug addicts and homeless people money. They might use the money for drugs. That's a sin and a "bad investment." It ignores the fact that nobody looses money in the parable. The point of the story is that any good thing you do in good faith with the gifts you're given is commendable.
I don't understand telling 50% of your church that the most important thing they can do is be a PreK Sunday school teacher or nursery volunteer. That's burying talents in a field.
“The caucus that lost their minds over the suggestion that they should wear masks during a pandemic … is now spending its time focusing on the fine details of what women have to wear (specifically how to cover their arms) to show respect here,” state Rep. Peter Meredith tweeted.
Up next, van lots of good old boys driving around harassing women who are out in public without a male escort or who aren't dressed conservatively enough. The right wing is playing right out of the theocratic extremist playbook.
How can you discount half of the entire population so easily? How could a group possibly succeed in this world while ignoring half of the talent they have to pull from. Insane to think something like that would ever work. Yet it's a pretty normal stance