First of all, many thanks to those who took the time to write the Editor concerning the recent lengthy article and large color picture of "Baptist Deacon "and her Pastor. I know of more letters sent to the Editors that have not been published, and I rather doubt mine would be published through that channel.
It is ironic that this has come to light in the midst of my articles addressing the subject of "DOCTRINE" recently. It is a classic example of laying aside Doctrine in spite of clear Biblical teaching. Friends, it does not matter how many Doctors degrees one has nor how many offices or positions one has filled. The "right" to an ordained position in a local Church is not filled by those who have "paid my dues". GLARING OMISSION! There is a glaring omission in the lengthy article: NOT ONE SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN OR QUOTED TO PROVE THAT WOMEN IN FACT CAN HOLD THE POSITION OF DEACON OR PREACH IN A PASTOR'S ABSENCE! AND AGAIN, LET ME SAY, NO ONE EARNS THE RIGHT OR PAYS THEIR DUES IN ORDER TO HOLD SUCH A POSITION. There is also an admission in the article that Dr. Day's Church "differs markedly from some other area Baptist Churches. There is more open mindedness. We see ourselves as a community Church. A number of non-Baptists are very comfortable in our services. Women may preach in my absence. Alice has preached twice. We don't react in horror if a woman fills the pulpit."
A few thoughts on the above quote:
- It differs because it has strayed from historic Baptist Biblical positions
- The open mindedness reveals a lack of reliance on the Bible for Faith and practice.
- If they see themselves as a community Church and drift from Baptist distinctives, they should remove "Baptist" and insert "Community"
- While a number of non-Baptists are very comfortable in their services, it must be admitted that most Southern Baptists would not be comfortable there!
- Women preaching in Dr. Day's absence is a direct contradiction of several Scriptures which teach us to, "Let the woman LEARN IN SILENCE WITH ALL SUBJECTION. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN, BUT TO BE IN SILENCE." 1 TIM.2:l 1-12 6.
The reason there is no reaction of horror is because as stated further in the article, they "weren't in tune with the fundamental leanings of the SBC." I suppose then that either the Fundamentalist folk never came to the Church or those left will have to leave or conform and compromise. FINALLY, THE WOMAN DEACON ISSUE IS ONLY A SYMPTOM. THE REAL PROBLEM IS A TOTAL DISREGARD FOR GOD'S WORD AS FINAL AUTHORITY.
While all Believers are "diakonos" servants in general, ONLY MEN WERE ORDAINED TO THE OFFICE OF DEACON. Read 1 Tim. 3:8-13 and see it is an office held by men. Specifically v12 says, "Let the deacons be the husbands (plural, not just one, but all deacons are to be men!) of one wife". A WOMAN CAN'T DO THAT!