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.

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    1 Timothy 2:12 is fairly clear on the matter.

    But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    but the flip side is they can ignore that just like they ignore prohibitions on eating shrimp and wearing polycotton blends.


    As an atheist I don’t have skin in the game either way.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Aermis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes. This. What was considered clean and unclean to eat was amended in Peter’s vision in acts 10. So was clothing and much else of levitical law during jesus’ gospel.

        Even Paul’s writings about women speaking above men needs to take into context that the church in Ephesus (modern day turkey) was led by young Timothy. The theme was pretty strict to reestablish a baseline of roles and law to apply to Ephesus, which was seen as very immoral, murderous and rebellious. I mean Paul says people should stay celibate and not marry because this can complicate a person’s relationship with God.

        Without going too deep, no, this doesn’t mean women shouldn’t teach because “god” demands women to be inferior/subjugated.

        If that was so why did God use women as prophets and leaders?

      • Stern@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not all branches have a hard on for Old Testament stuff that validates their regressive ideas, but yeah you’re right that many do, especially the evangelical thumpers

      • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.”

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      but the flip side is they can ignore that just like they ignore prohibitions on eating shrimp and wearing polycotton blends.

      Because Paul threw out the rules but added in a few of his own. Also to be fair this isn’t really Paul this is a guy pretending to be Paul.

      It’s funny rereading all his tiresome letters and remembering that all the arguments he is presenting he claims to have gotten in one blinding vision.

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Paul, or rather the amalgamation of Paul and the various authors of the texts canonized as the Pauline epistles, was a fuckin’ dick man of his place and time, and including the letters in the Bible really fucked up Christianity over the long-term.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • "no" banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t care what they do as long as it doesn’t affect me or people who don’t believe as they do.

  • die444die@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    11 months ago

    Fun fact, Southern Baptists are a thing because they split off from the Baptists so they could support slavery.

  • OhmsLawn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    11 months ago

    Of course they are.

    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.

      • OhmsLawn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I believe you’re correct. I’ve never been in a megachurch. I was thinking this might be one, but a convention center makes way more sense.

  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

  • pachrist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • NewAgeOldPerson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      “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.

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

  • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    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

    • ulkesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      …say what? Are you claiming atheists have something against women? Please, enlighten us.

        • ulkesh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Thanks for the quote, it at least helps to understand your context.

          To clear things up, however, atheists couldn’t care less about churches. Anti-theists perhaps do. Atheists I know just don’t want any religion or church to encroach on their rights and freedoms. The problem is that religionists are quite responsible for getting books banned in schools, trying to remove sex education in schools, are very anti-LGBTQ, have succeeded in the removal of women’s rights that have been precedent for decades, and are the most militant about their so-called beliefs in all of these matters, including believing in a fairy grandpa in the sky, that anyone who challenges them in any way, even simply intellectually, effectively constitutes a declaration of war.

          So if you want to be concerned about a specific group or groups of people, take a long hard look at the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, and Muslims and how they view women. And those are just a few examples. Atheists are the least of anyone’s problems in this world.