I met a few men at church, early on. In fact, I was asked to be an usher at the first service. It seemed like a good way to meet people, so I did it.

There were two services on Sundays. Each Sunday, I’d stand at the door to the sanctuary and greet people, hand out worship programs and so forth. The early service was lightly attended for the most part, so a minimum number of ushers were required.

One Sunday, there was a larger congregation than expected. We were one usher short when the call was made, “Let the men come forward to collect the offering.” I asked my wife, Brenda, to join me in order to have a partner in the far aisle to return the collection plate.

Seemed a simple thing to do; act of service and all that.

You can imagine the gasp when “the men” came forward and in their midst was Brenda. Being new, she and I were unaware of IBC’s position in those days regarding the role of women in the church.

Well, we made it through the service and were thereafter quite well-known among the congregation. We continued to usher and greet at the early services…she and I as a team at the door…but never again was Brenda asked to serve.

Two years have now passed since the first woman was invited to preach at IBC…and some 10+ years after Brenda’s memorable walk down the aisle with “the men” to accept the offering.

Congratulations to IBC for their study of and acceptance of results from the task force assigned to investigate this matter.

I think they’ve got it right.

Kim and Brenda Andereck
San Antonio, TX

12yrs ago when I was serving as a ministry leader and Sunday School teacher at IBC, and first breached this issue with Andy McQuitty, IBC allowed women to teach to anyone under the age of 18. So, women were exercising their gift of teaching and doing a fine job (Jan Fanning was a great example). But they were still under the guise of the male elders and at the time, a male pastor. At that time, Andy expressed to me that he had no problem with a woman deacon or pastor at IBC, suprisingly citing the same issues presented in IBC’s new policy statement.

Then and now, I beleive they are overlooking several key aspects of the issue.
1) In Genesis, God first instructs Adam. When Eve is created later, God does not instruct Eve, but gives that rule to Adam. When Adam gives up this responsibility and fails to question Eve’s false understanding (though both walked with God at this point), sin enters into the world.

2) The leaders of Isrial from the casting out of the Garden to the NT were men, and did not go back and forth as some want us to believe. This prescedence of patriarcal society was instituted in the Garden with Adam and followed from it. Women were only used when a man did not step up and assume his responsibility. And even then, as was the case with Moses, it was his own sister who tried to wrestle leadership from him. Women led well, but once again, it was not God’s ideal. As a man stepped up to the plate, the woman stopped leading, as there is no record of an extended era of matriarcal rule.

3) The NT Church followed the same suit as OT Isrial. Women were leaders, but only when men didn’t. The issues concerning slaves, head coverings, and speaking must all be taken in deep context. Head coverings were to be asa symble of submission. Not speaking, praying, etc. was once again concerning disruption and submission to a male church leader, or pastor. Slavery contrasted the physical and the spiritual. IBC should be ashamed for tossing these herrings into the discussion.

4) Christ often referred to himself as the groom and to the Church as His bride. God established this relationship for us to understand in the garden with Adam and Eve. In this arrangement, it is the grooms responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the bride. If and only if the groom fails in this is the bride to step up. And so if Christ, a male, is the leader of the Church, and we are to follow His example, how can we hold that it is NORMAL for a woman to spiritually lead a man or an entire church?

5)The responsibility of the pastor of a church is to spiritually guide the congregation, as a shephard leads his own flock. This is NOT the responsibility of the Elders. And so to claim that a woman who is under the thumb of male Elders is Biblically acceptable is a further ‘shucking’ of the pastor’s responsibility and no longer mirrors God’s ideal, but His exception. The fact that some elders at IBC disagreed with this move further calls into question how submissive this woman is to their leadership.

In my opinion, IBC had an agenda and picked and ‘interpretted’ things to fit that agenda. Andy as the spiritual pastor (as oppossed to the accountent call the shots) handed off more of his authority and responsibility. The fact that the foundation of the ‘Finley Road’ IBC is no longer active in the leadership speaks volumes. This will unfortunately become the norm as these large churches must bring in a larger audience to meet an increasing staff salary and an even more increasing mortgage.

Did this woman do a great presentation? yes. Is it her responsibility? NO.

Active voice means the subject is doing the action. Passive voice means the subject is being acted upon. Middle voice combines these 2 concepts and means the subject is acting upon themselves.

“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

That is wow! Amazing! There is nothing sad about it. It is incredible.”

It was quite a step up for women at the time who legally were property and legally had to obey their husbands. For Paul not to mention obedience, even though he did for slaves and children, was understood loud and clear to the believers in that culture.

What was even more radical was for Paul to tell all believers to submit to one another within the Body. All means all. He did not say that believing husbands were exluded. He also did not exclude elders from this passage. Perhaps we have a wrong understanding of submission?