Posted on 08/24/2006 10:02:06 AM PDT by presidio9
A U.S. Baptist preacher has publicly defended himself for firing a female Sunday School teacher after more than 50 years on the job because he believes the Bible bans women from teaching men.
Watertown First Baptist Church Pastor Tim LaBouf, also a city council member in Watertown, N.Y., said women could fulfill any role or responsibility they wanted to -- outside the church.
"My belief is that the qualifications for both men and women teaching spiritual matters in a church setting end at the church door, period," LaBouf said in a statement on the church Web site (http://www.nnyinfo.com/firstbaptist).
LaBouf and the church board fired Mary Lambert, 81, earlier this month in a letter that cited the scriptural qualifications for Sunday School teachers, Lambert said.
"They quote First Timothy Two, 11-14: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent," Lambert said, reading from the letter.
"I was astonished," she said. "I would not go back and teach as long as this is their thinking."
Watertown is 250 miles northwest of New York City.
William Carlsen, executive minister for American Baptist Churches of New York State, said U.S. Baptist Churches are autonomous and that there would not be many other Baptist Churches that share LaBouf's view.
"A considerable number if not a majority of American Baptist Churches have been quite aggressive in affirming the place of women's leadership roles within the church," Carlsen said.
The board of the Watertown First Baptist Church said in a statement on its Web site that the scripture rules concerning women teaching men in a church setting had only played a small part in Lambert's sacking.
"Christian courtesy motivates us to refrain from making any public accusations against her," the board said.
I would throw things, only you're right.
If you read the text of his letter, posted above, you will see that you are judging him based on the media reports, not on what he actually did.
If the media says the sky is blue, CHECK before you reply.
Shalom.
>>>It's not him. Paul said it.
Take it up with Paul.>>>
Oh I'd have alot of issues with Paul if I ever ran across him. But funny how men only like what Paul teaches when it comes to making women inferior...
Funny, but that isn't what I heard everyday for the first, oh, 20 so years of my life.
I mean, women have their place, and if it makes them miserable, or they don't fit in that pre-ordained 'spot', the damn them to hell for not being happy about it!
Right?
I refer you to my comment #93. Shame on me for thinking that folks would understand my analogy.
"Do you take every word of the Bible (Old and/or New Testaments)literally?"
I believe the word of God (aka Bible) is infallible. Its our understanding of it that is generally lacking. 'Literal' translation seems to imply we should discount the culture and language used at the time.
For if the bible is not infallible then who gets to decide which parts are correct and which are incorrect? Most people are not aware of the huge amount of religious and secular evidence supporting the bible. Therefor the argument that it was written by men and fallible is easily accepted by some.
There will come a time when you will find out whether worshipping Jesus Christ is stupid.
But to claim that all Christians are stuipd and prejudiced says something about you.
And I don't think you'll like it.
Shalom.
NOT, as you not innocently but falsely protest, to merely connect the two minor things they have in common.
"That is precisely what I am doing, and not falsely. What's funny are the resulting "well yeah, but" logical fallacies."
You obviously have no idea what a fallacy of logic is since that is YOUR actual position and what YOU are doing. You sir, are saying because dog is mammal and man is mammal, therefore dog is man.
With your logic...I can then presume YOU are taliban. Taliban drinks water and YOU drink water....
"Around here, if you want to see evidence of attempting to eradicate religious relics, Christians are on the receiving end, not the giving end."
Its a losing battle and will only get worse.
This preacher doesn't want women to teach, the Taliban do not want women to teach. That makes them _______________.
"Oh I'd have alot of issues with Paul if I ever ran across him. But funny how men only like what Paul teaches when it comes to making women inferior..."
Once worked with a woman who had seious issues with Pauls writings. Then she discovered the responsibilities that God charged men with. She changed her mind and stated that women got the better deal.
Creative interpratation is a constant problem no matter what the subject is.
I was anticipating all the arguments about whether he should allow her to teach, rather than the important subject of "why is what that church does any of our business."
Sorry - I was not attacking you for posting it. I was attacking the press for running it. And, of course, I know why. The press wants to hurt Christianity any way it can. And the number of people who have attacked this Fr. LeBeouf without finding out what really happened because of what the MSM said about him shows how well it works.
Shalom.
Bookmark
There is more than one reason why women aren't supposed to teach men. One is the whole Eve thing. Women are more easily fooled by lies. Then there is the whole male female order thing.
"This preacher doesn't want women to teach, the Taliban do not want women to teach. That makes them _______________."
frogs?
I'm not a preacher despite your insulting manner towards 'preachers'. I'm a lay person who tries to treat others with respect. Whatever your back ground or belief system its obvious that treating others with respect is not part of it.
Do you have a scriptural argument that he is a doofus? What is your faith based on? Reuters?
OK - first you made a rediculous correlation. Then you showed that you didn't even begin to equate yourself with the facts before commenting. Then you ignored every attempt to point out your falsehood.
I owe Bill Clinton an apology for equating him with you.
Shalom.
Not everyone fits into what is expected of them in a religious setting.
Whether it's meeting in a crowd,
Whether it's feeling comfortable in large groups and working with them,
Whether it's the music, preaching and worship style,
Whether it's believing every word of the Bible as total truth,
Whether it's continually practicing NOT being yourself because you have literally nothing in common with the crowd The crowd that you're not only expected to not only 'fit' with, but actually act see them as a second family.
Whether it's attending prayer meeting and realizing that what is eating you alive and driving you to madness you could and would never, EVER say out loud in front of anyone in the room.
Whether it's trying repeatedly to read the Bible and just seeing a very mean, angry, female loathing/ignoring God represented.
For me it hit home when I was extremely ill one summer, and
I while I called, emailed and was visited by several close friends.... and was very safe and comfy.....
It dawned on me later that it never once crossed my mind to contact anyone at church or even the minister. They were that far out my circle of trust and comfort. Always had been, always would be.
So, as an experiment, I simply quit going. Or even beating myself up for not going to church. For the first time in my life, I actually enjoyed a Sunday!
Then Easter came and I spent the day outside in the garden, in the hammock, just watching clouds.
As for the Middle Eastern Dance component. It was the first time in my life were I was made to feel and actually believe that being a female was a good thing, and even something God would like.
Ironic, isn't it?
We understood. It was a false analogy. Shame on any of us for thinking your eyes could be opened.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.