According to Preacher:Women cannot teach men

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:11 pm

Preacher defends belief women can't teach men Mon Aug 21, 5:54 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - 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 sacked 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 (400 km) 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

woppy71 · Post by **woppy71** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:17 pm

Sexism in the church.....so sad.

what ever happened to "There before the grace of god go I?"

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:41 pm

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

That's utter BS. This is one more reason why I cannot take the bible seriously. Submission my @$$, we women give BIRTH to men!

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:41 am

I smell a rat. This guy is a city council member so he is not new to the community. The article doesn't mention that he was newly appointed as pastor to that church so I'm assuming he has been there a while. So why all of a sudden does he get rid of a lady that has been teaching Sunday School for 50 years? I grew up in the Baptist denomination and I've seen plenty of women teach Sunday School. There is something else to this story. The story also used the word "fired" which is a bit erroneous. Fired implies employed. Sunday School teacher is a volunteer position - I've never heard of a church paying Sunday School teachers.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:45 am

What self respecting woman would even try to teach a man? They never listen anyway!

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:54 am

Diuretic wrote: That's cos we don't need to - we know everything

:wah:

Ahh...you're such sweety pies, the lot of you...sadly disillusioned, but still sweety pies.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:52 am

SnoozeControl wrote: I saw this article online also... this particular article didn't mention it, but the town's mayor is NOT happy with this decision. I suspect an investigation and possible lawsuit in the future. :)Lawsuit for what? What possible jurisdiction does the city gov't have over how a church manages its volunteer staff??

I don't see the connection

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:05 am

Apparently it was a paid position. LINK

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:11 am

Maybe she had other duties besides Sunday School. Either way, I find it especially offensive that they would treat an elderly member of the church in this manner.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:58 am

(Hey...ADAM! Sounds TALIBANESQUE to me!) (Nanner, nanner nannnnner!) :wah:

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:07 am

RedGlitter wrote: 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

That's utter BS. This is one more reason why I cannot take the bible seriously. Submission my @$$, we women give BIRTH to men!

And I want to be the first to say thank you red for giving birth to us men. I appreciate all vaginal experiences.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:50 am

theia wrote: What self respecting woman would even try to teach a man? They never listen anyway!

I'd be happy, if i could just teach a man to NOT pi$$ on the loo seat and when hes finished PUT THE BLOODY BOG SEAT DOWN .

:rolleyes:

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:24 am

YZGI wrote: And I want to be the first to say thank you red for giving birth to us men. I appreciate all vaginal experiences.

You could have lefy off that last bit

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:34 am

PINKS! THAT IS SOOOOO FUNNY! :wah:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:35 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: I'd be happy, if i could just teach a man to NOT pi$$ on the loo seat and when hes finished PUT THE BLOODY BOG SEAT DOWN .

:rolleyes: That's right! It's after - AFTER! :-5

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:00 pm

(Sadistic TWIT!) :wah:

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:11 pm

"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 believe it says a woman should learn in quietness. It doesn't say she should not preach at all. This has actually made me angry. women have so much to teach mankind.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:58 pm

I thought you might like to hear the pastor's explanation, taken off the church website (I report, you decide:) ):

TIMOTHY R. LABOUF

1141 STATE STREET

WATERTOWN, NY 13601

August 19, 2006

For Immediate Release

Ladies and gentlemen,

Over the course of the last several years as a Watertown City Councilmember I have had the distinct honor to speak with many of you about a variety of different issues. As a Councilmember I have been dedicated to listening to you and your points of view so that I could make decisions that would be in your best interests and bring about the best possible results for this community that we all love. I believe that together we have accomplished some great things and I firmly believe that our best days still lie ahead. I remain humbled and honored by the great trust that you have placed in me. It is a trust that I take very seriously and it is a trust that I do not want to jeopardize.

For the last several days I have remained silent about the decision that our board at the First Baptist church made, which I work for and in concert with, to relieve a member of our church from teaching an adult class and the rational behind that decision. I know that my silence has been a source of frustration to some of you and many of you must have been thinking, “Why isn’t he speaking?” Others of you probably thought, “He has never been shy in front of the cameras before, why now?” I would have probably thought the same things if I were in your shoes so I’d like to explain the best I can to you the reasons for my initial silence.

The meeting in which our Board made this decision took place on the evening of Wednesday, August 9th at 6:30 p.m. On Thursday, August 10th the letter was mailed to Ms. Lambert. When I arrived home on the evening of Monday August 14th there was a message on my home answering machine from John Moore of Newswatch50 requesting that I call him at home or on his cell phone. I thought it was a bit late to phone him at home so my intention was to call him the following day. My initial thought was that he was calling in regard to a City issue. Well, the following morning, Tuesday, August 15th I was saddened to learn via the Newswatch50 website that once again a private church matter was made public by Ms. Lambert. The media inquiries as you can imagine became increasing more intense by the hour and our board felt that it important to call a special meeting to formulate a public response. Many of you know what it is like trying to get people’s schedules to coordinate for meetings and so the board decided that Friday evening at 7:00 p.m. would provide the greatest opportunity for Board members to attend. As frustrating as the waiting has been I felt it appropriate to first confer with our Board before making a public comment out of respect to them and their positions and to obtain guidance from them in regard to commenting on this issue to ensure that I would not create additional confusion and pain in our community. I think we can all agree that there has been enough of that. I want you to know that waiting to comment this long has been extremely difficult for me also. I know that you can appreciate that and I am grateful for your understanding. Our special Board meeting took place tonight, Friday August 19, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at which time the Board prepared a statement for the public that I am confident will be made available to you. At this point I am now prepared to be transparent with you about this issue and how it relates to my role at the First Baptist Church and on the Watertown City Council.

First let me address this issue in regard to how it applies to my role at First Baptist Church and some of the history that led up to the Board’s decision. As most of you are aware when I arrived at First Baptist Church the congregation was dwindling and the church was headed for eventual closure. In a short period of time we began to see tremendous growth in the church which made me and many others feel thankful and blessed. In a short period of time classrooms that did not have children in them for a number of years were filling up with children, other parts of the building that had not been used in years were now needing to be utilized as a result of our growth. New members began stepping up willing to serve on boards and in various areas within the church. Changes began to be made to maximize our growth and meet the needs of the growing congregation. The majority of our membership was genuinely excited about the growth and new hope for the future of the church, however, as you recall there were some who were unhappy with new members joining the church, changes that were being made and my performance in general as pastor. As a result a small group decided to forgo the mechanisms that we have in place for dealing with conflicts or disagreements within the church and elected to hire a local attorney and aired their grievances in a letter to the Watertown Daily Times.

The Board passed a resolution on May 21st 2006 reprimanding those individuals and their actions, encouraged them to avail themselves to our in house mechanisms for expressing concerns and complaints rather than utilizing the local media and acknowledged many of their actions as detrimental to the health and vitality of the church. Since the May 21st resolution the Board has been aware that several of those individuals continued to engage in activities the Board viewed as detrimental to the church family. As stated in the Board’s August 19th press release the reasons for this most recent decision was, “multifaceted and the scriptural rules concerning women teaching men in a church setting was only a small aspect of that decision. Christian courtesy motivates us to refrain from making any public accusations against her.”

We had originally intended to include the various multifaceted reasons for the dismissal in our corresponds however after legal review it was recommended that we refrain from including issues that could be construed as slander and stick with “spiritual issues” that govern a church, which the courts have historically stayed out of. With threats of lawsuits in the past we wanted to try hard to not go down that road again. I am sure you can understand why we would desire to exercise caution. As Pastor of the First Baptist Church I take very seriously my responsibilities to watch over the congregation and I also take very seriously proclaiming scripture as the truth and applicable for all situations of life and containing the blueprints for how we should structure our church corporately. I believe based on the consistent teaching of scripture that there are qualifications for both men and women teaching spiritual matters within the church. These qualifications do not mean that one is superior or more important than another it only means that God has a special plan for each of us in accomplishing His work within the church setting. I believe that as a Pastor I will ultimately stand before God and give an account of how I proclaimed and enforced His word within the church setting especially. Now I am fully aware that not everyone ascribes to my view of the scriptures but I would never vilify them for having a different religious view and I would hope that if you do hold a different view that you would extend to me the same courtesy. I want you to know that my desire is to not hurt anyone or to belittle anyone but only to ensure that the scripture is upheld in our church and not compromised. Now having said all of this I am heartbroken that this situation has created pain in the lives of many in our community and I am truly sorry for that. I also think that it is unfortunate that this situation within our church came to a head the way that it did and that we were not able to work through it more effectively within our church and that it became a public debate. I am also sorry for that however I will remain prayerful that the various discussions will lead to spiritual growth for many.

Many have drawn conclusions as to how this issue applies to my role as a Watertown City Councilmember. My belief is that the qualifications for both men and women teaching spiritual matters in a church setting end at the church door, period. Now let me explain my position of the role of women in society especially because that is where many of the discussions have centered and some false accusations have been made that need correction. I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to. Growing up I was primarily educated by the Sisters of Saint Joseph and I like to believe that they did a really good job; at least they did the best they could with the pupil in me they had to work with. I have fond memories of their instructions and they have my genuine and enduring gratitude.

As you are aware we have a female city manager, Mary Corriveau. Each year the council is required to complete a comprehensive review of the City Manager’s performance and if you will recall typically it has been I who has given her some of the highest accolades. If I felt any other way than believing that women can perform any job and fulfill and responsibility that they desire to certainly those views would have been reflected in my review. I believe the Mary Corriveau is one of the best City Managers that we have had and I am thankful for her hard work and dedication to our community. In addition to Mary Corriveau we have a number of female employees that serve in various capacities in our city. I can tell you that they are good, dedicated employees who put in long hours to the benefit of the City of Watertown and I am grateful for their service.

I have a number of female acquaintances and friends that work in our business community, in the military and in other professional situations that I have always treated with respect and with the utmost regards. I have supported many of them in their professional endeavors and will continue to conduct myself in the same manner.

In my heart I know that each of you know me and that I have continually proven to you over the years that we have been together that I treat both men and woman as equals and that I work hard to be fair with all to the best of my ability and try to conduct my affairs with character and integrity.

For those of you who have given me the benefit of the doubt and have stood by me I am truly grateful for your support and friendship. For those of you who have had doubts I certainly understand and I sincerely hope that this correspondence has clarified things for you and if further clarification is needed please don’t hesitate to contact me and I would be happy to give further explanation.

This has certainly been a learning experience for me and from the bottom of my heart I thank you for your understanding and continued trust as we move forward together to accomplish positive goals for our community.

Very truly yours,

Timothy R. LaBouf

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:54 pm

So as long as it's not in the church, a woman "can have any job she wants." The jerk owes the woman and his congregation a sincere apology. This is utter brainwash and an example of where religion screws up.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:29 am

RedGlitter wrote: So as long as it's not in the church, a woman "can have any job she wants." The jerk owes the woman and his congregation a sincere apology. This is utter brainwash and an example of where religion screws up.Yup yup yup! Read Jesus' teachings and compare them to Paul (who laid down the rules about women). They are worlds apart.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:57 am

Interesting take, flopstock. That may be the case. My reading of the article lead me to believe that there is a split in the church, a power struggle if you will. This elderly teacher apparently has aligned herself with the group opposing the pastor, through lawsuits(?) or something, and as a result was removed from her post as a Sunday School teacher which is considered a position of spiritual authority in most churches. I have no idea which faction is in the right or wrong but as a matter of course most pastors will place people who are loyal to the church leadership in those positions. Again, to me it sounds like there is a power struggle ongoing and they used the referenced scripture as justification for their actions rather than say they canned her because she is sympathetic to the pastors opposition. That was my initial take anyway.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:36 am

SnoozeControl wrote: I'm always surprised when a young man shows such caveman sentiments... and that guy looks about 12. I wonder what happened in his life to cause such narrow minded bigotry against women, particularly older women.

That can be answered with the phrase Children Learn What they Live.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:07 am

"They used their bible as a cloak to justify their personal agenda rather then be honest and simply state that agenda... seems to me that this is the same tactic used by those who would start holy wars.. "

(What's new?)

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:27 am

To coin a term almost to its meaning - "What a load of bollocks"!

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:05 pm

flopstock wrote: Sounds like we are in agreement here, Adam. They used their bible as a cloak to justify their personal agenda rather then be honest and simply state that agenda... seems to me that this is the same tactic used by those who would start holy wars..

We agree to an extent. I certainly don't take it as far as others have. I'm not even sure why this is news. In any organization, the head of that organization is going to fill leadership posts with people who share his/her vision and remove those who seek to undermine his/her leadership. Perhaps those people have legitimate and valid reasons to oppose this pastor, or perhaps they are being vicious and unfair. I don't know and neither do you. Frankly, I don't care. It is one church in a NY town I've never heard of (and I used to live in NY), not exactly the thing that "holy wars" are made of. I think it is important to keep a little perspective here lest we start sounding shrill.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:37 am

SnoozeControl wrote: Well how about being concerned for an elderly lady that had devoted 54 years of her life to helping her community in a job she probably felt was important and then being kicked to the curb when the new regime took over. That's not news worthy? Sadly, it probably isn't most of the time because most elderly ladies would've just gone quietly away and died... but this lady made it public to show an unfair employee that was playing dirty. Good for her!I'm surprised the church didn't revolt over it. I've seen Baptist churches split and die over less.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:49 am

Accountable wrote: I'm surprised the church didn't revolt over it. I've seen Baptist churches split and die over less.

I sense that is what is happening and that the elderly woman aligned herself with the side in opposition to the pastor. For the record, I've already stated my concern for the way this woman was treated earlier in the thread.

Tigerlily · Post by **Tigerlily** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:32 am

what puzzles me is that his spiritual training had apparently been undertaken by women in the school he went to. If their teaching was faulty because they were women, how can he trust his own judgement?

And we still don't know what the old dear was doing that was so wrong, do we? Looks to me like they just viewed her as an old crone who was spoiling the image of the vibrant growing church attracting young people. Or am I just a cynic?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:51 pm

Tigerlily wrote: what puzzles me is that his spiritual training had apparently been undertaken by women in the school he went to. If their teaching was faulty because they were women, how can he trust his own judgement?

And we still don't know what the old dear was doing that was so wrong, do we? Looks to me like they just viewed her as an old crone who was spoiling the image of the vibrant growing church attracting young people. Or am I just a cynic?No, of course not. Cynic is only one facet of your personality. :-6

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:26 am

("what puzzles me is that his spiritual training had apparently been undertaken by women in the school he went to. If their teaching was faulty because they were women, how can he trust his own judgement?" :wah: When I was in Egypt, a local man was telling me how terribly) the Egyptian women drive and how nobody will approach a woman who's driving a car. I asked how these women learn to drive and was told "Why, the MEN in their lives teach them, of course!)

Tigerlily · Post by **Tigerlily** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:07 pm

behind every terrible woman driver is the man who taught her - usually in the seat beside her, criticising, and putting her off doing something she could do perfectly well if he wasn't there, carping.

Felinessa · Post by **Felinessa** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:41 pm

Lulu2 wrote: When I was in Egypt, a local man was telling me how ... nobody will approach a woman who's driving a car.

Maybe they do that for protection?:wah:

I agree that they probably used the Bible to justify a political move. I don't know what the situation in the church was and perhaps they were justified to replace her, but I do take issue with the way they hid behind a biblical quotation. It only serves to fuel emnity against Christianity, especially for those who are not familiar with the religion and use such events as a guide for their understanding of the faith.