AGHouston11 said:

---

No matter the denomination the attacks are happening to all of them by the left. Liberals have infiltrated all denominations.
Destruction of the conservative church is an important component that should never be overlooked.

Meanwhile most conservative Christians have their heads in the sand!

---

First, I agree with your point entirely. Having said that, I get itchy when referring to the church as a political point of view.

Tramp96 said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

NE PA Ag said:

---

Evanhue said:

---

Very interesting. We just left our church about a month ago over this very issue. Our pastor's wife was named "Executive Pastor" with full approval of the elders.

---

I recall that the membership of SBC churches votes to install a pastor. Am I right about that and if so, did this not get put to a membership vote?

Also, what is an elder? Do you mean deacons?

---

I served as a Deacon in 3 churches of Christ, and these are the requirements for Elders (leaders of the church) and Deacons (Servants of the Church)

Titus 1:5-9 English Standard Version

Qualifications for Elders (Men Only)
5 This is why I left you in Crete so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

1 Timothy 3 English Standard Version

Qualifications for Deacons (Men Only)
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, and not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

---

Actually, both passages are referring to the office of the pastor (minister, priest, etc.) I had a Lutheran pastor correct me on this when I told him I didn't feel qualified to be an elder in our church.

---

I respectfully disagree; they are 2 different positions as defined by Paul to lead and serve the local church

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

NE PA Ag said:

---

Evanhue said:

---

Very interesting. We just left our church about a month ago over this very issue. Our pastor's wife was named "Executive Pastor" with full approval of the elders.

---

I recall that the membership of SBC churches votes to install a pastor. Am I right about that and if so, did this not get put to a membership vote?

Also, what is an elder? Do you mean deacons?

---

I served as a Deacon in 3 churches of Christ, and these are the requirements for Elders (leaders of the church) and Deacons (Servants of the Church)

Titus 1:5-9 English Standard Version

Qualifications for Elders (Men Only)
5 This is why I left you in Crete so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

1 Timothy 3 English Standard Version

Qualifications for Deacons (Men Only)
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, and not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

---

Actually, both passages are referring to the office of the pastor (minister, priest, etc.) I had a Lutheran pastor correct me on this when I told him I didn't feel qualified to be an elder in our church.

---

I respectfully disagree; they are 2 different positions as defined by Paul to lead and serve the local church

---

To our English knowledge, they appear to be two different positions. But apparently if you understand Greek language nuance and early church history, both passages refer to pastors of congregations. Since I never took Greek, I trust in the knowledge of those who have.

This is why Lutheran seminaries (and some other denominations as well) require their students to learn Greek and Hebrew.

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

And here we go

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

---

No.

This is such a tired and ignorant retort. The Bible does not condone or advocate for slavery. Indentured servitude was a fact of life in ancient Israel, but so were multiple wives at some points in history. There is a difference between descriptive text in the Bible and prescriptive text.

Also, often times "servants" and "masters" was akin to employee and supervisor.

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

The SBC is right where they've always been and did not make this an issue.

Is there any bigger issue than fundamental doctrine?

And the Catholics will be surprised at all the non Catholics in hell. LOL, just kidding, sort of.

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

---

Depends on who is being enslaved.

Tramp96 said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

---

No.

This is such a tired and ignorant retort. The Bible does not condone or advocate for slavery. Indentured servitude was a fact of life in ancient Israel, but so were multiple wives at some points in history. There is a difference between descriptive text in the Bible and prescriptive text.

Also, often times "servants" and "masters" was akin to employee and supervisor.

---

That wasn't the PCA interpretation

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

---

No.

This is such a tired and ignorant retort. The Bible does not condone or advocate for slavery. Indentured servitude was a fact of life in ancient Israel, but so were multiple wives at some points in history. There is a difference between descriptive text in the Bible and prescriptive text.

Also, often times "servants" and "masters" was akin to employee and supervisor.

---

That wasn't the PCA interpretation

---

Look, I can't speak to the theological dispositions of the Porsche Club of America.

Tramp96 said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

---

No.

This is such a tired and ignorant retort. The Bible does not condone or advocate for slavery. Indentured servitude was a fact of life in ancient Israel, but so were multiple wives at some points in history. There is a difference between descriptive text in the Bible and prescriptive text.

Also, often times "servants" and "masters" was akin to employee and supervisor.

---

That wasn't the PCA interpretation

---

Look, I can't speak to the theological dispositions of the Porsche Club of America.

---

What about watery tarts throwing swords?

Tramp96 said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

---

No.

This is such a tired and ignorant retort. The Bible does not condone or advocate for slavery. Indentured servitude was a fact of life in ancient Israel, but so were multiple wives at some points in history. There is a difference between descriptive text in the Bible and prescriptive text.

Also, often times "servants" and "masters" was akin to employee and supervisor.

---

That wasn't the PCA interpretation

---

Look, I can't speak to the theological dispositions of the Porsche Club of America.

---

Presbyterian Church in America

The Fife said:

---

Shoefly! said:

---

Maybe if they agree upon drinking & dancing they can grow their #'s.

---

They can drink as long as there aren't any other Baptists around

---

This is true!

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address?

---

Biblical adherence is a BIG issue.

No SB I know will be surprised there are people from other denominations in Heaven. They also won't be surprised that many members of SBC churches aren't in Heaven.

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

---

Scripture is not "in favor" of slavery. Take your heresy somewhere else.

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

---

No.

This is such a tired and ignorant retort. The Bible does not condone or advocate for slavery. Indentured servitude was a fact of life in ancient Israel, but so were multiple wives at some points in history. There is a difference between descriptive text in the Bible and prescriptive text.

Also, often times "servants" and "masters" was akin to employee and supervisor.

---

That wasn't the PCA interpretation

---

Look, I can't speak to the theological dispositions of the Porsche Club of America.

---

Presbyterian Church in America

---

Well, as a Lutheran, I probably understand the theological dispositions of the Porsche Club of America better than the Presbyterian Church in America. It's a German thing, you know.

Small Block Chevy?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

It's literally a fight over the inerrancy of Scripture.

Once you start to pick and choose which pieces of Scripture you feel are valid vs not valid, then before long you've opened the door to questioning the validity of ALL of Scripture.

So yeah, it's a pretty big deal and there really aren't bigger issues to address.

---

So you're in favor of slavery?

---

Scripture is not "in favor" of slavery. Take your heresy somewhere else.

---

Apparently you interpretation of scripture is the only one that counts. PCA had a different view on the inerrant word of the Bible.

https://religionnews.com/2016/06/30/what-catalyst-started-the-presbyterian-church-in-america-racism/

Presbyterians are Calvinists, and as such they believe in the theology of double predestination.

When you believe that you are chosen to be saved or damned by God before you are even born, it can open the door to a whole host of bad Biblical interpretations (or practicing Biblical eisegesis instead of exegesis).

**Disclaimer: I'm not attacking any individual Presbyterian or even the denomination. I'm talking about the denomination's historical beliefs as a whole.


I know...take it to the R&P board.

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

The SBC has spent more time on this than they have on stopping (or at least disciplining) the well-documented rape, child abuse and sexual grooming cases among their leaders and congregants.

Tramp96 said:

---

Presbyterians are Calvinists, and as such they believe in the theology of double predestination.

When you believe that you are chosen to be saved or damned by God before you are even born, it can open the door to a whole host of bad Biblical interpretations (or practicing Biblical eisegesis instead of exegesis).

**Disclaimer: I'm not attacking any individual Presbyterian or even the denomination. I'm talking about the denomination's historical beliefs as a whole.


I know...take it to the R&P board.

---

As a retired Presbyterian missionary I can tell you most Presbyterians struggle with the concept of predestination. This is a summarization of a conversation with my Baptist mother in law.

Me: Do you believe we're predestined to go to heaven or hell?
MIL: No.
Me: So you're saying we can choose to be born again?
Her: Yes
Me: Do you believe an omnipotent God knows our every thought and action before we or born?
Her: Yes
Me: So if you believe He knows those things, based on that, can't we be predestined to go to either heaven or hell?
Her: she starts crying.

SantaLucia said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

The SBC has spent more time on this than they have on stopping (or at least disciplining) the well-documented rape, child abuse and sexual grooming cases among their leaders and congregants.

---

That's because it's more challenging when you are a loose affiliation of independent congregations rather than a more hierarchal structure like what you have with the RCC, synods, the United Methodist structure, etc.

The SBC by definition is not even a denomination in the strictest sense of the word. It's a convention of like-minded, but wholly independent, Baptist congregations.

That makes dealing with sexual abuse scandals exponentially more challenging in the SBC then say in the UMC or a Lutheran synod. Even though the congregations in many Lutheran synods are still independent, the calling of pastors and church workers still have some synod and district oversight....the SBC doesn't have any such structure, oversight, or authority in place for that, so it's very, very difficult in their structure to prevent a church worker from one congregation who has been accused of sexual abuse to be hired in a different congregation who may or may not have been aware (or who may have dismissed the allegations).

Now as I understand it the SBC has worked in recent years to create some type of church worker list or something along those lines, but when the individual congregations are so truly independent, it's just hard to facilitate.

Not defending them at all, just pointing out the reality and the limitations of how the SBC is structured.

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Apparently you interpretation of scripture is the only one that counts. PCA had a different view on the inerrant word of the Bible.

https://religionnews.com/2016/06/30/what-catalyst-started-the-presbyterian-church-in-america-racism/

---

PCA has zero authority in my life.

hth

Tramp96 said:

---

SantaLucia said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

The SBC has spent more time on this than they have on stopping (or at least disciplining) the well-documented rape, child abuse and sexual grooming cases among their leaders and congregants.

---

That's because it's more challenging when you are a loose affiliation of independent congregations rather than a more hierarchal structure like what you have with the RCC, synods, the United Methodist structure, etc.

The SBC by definition is not even a denomination in the strictest sense of the word. It's a convention of like-minded, but wholly independent, Baptist congregations.

That makes dealing with sexual abuse scandals exponentially more challenging in the SBC then say in the UMC or a Lutheran synod. Even though the congregations in many Lutheran synods are still independent, the calling of pastors and church workers still have some synod and district oversight....the SBC doesn't have any such structure, oversight, or authority in place for that, so it's very, very difficult in their structure to prevent a church worker from one congregation who has been accused of sexual abuse to be hired in a different congregation who may or may not have been aware (or who may have dismissed the allegations).

Now as I understand it the SBC has worked in recent years to create some type of church worker list or something along those lines, but when the individual congregations are so truly independent, it's just hard to facilitate.

Not defending them at all, just pointing out the reality and the limitations of how the SBC is structured.

---

Former Baptist. I get it. Served as a lay leader in the UMC.

If they have the resolve to disfellowship Rick Warren for allowing a woman the title of Pastor, why don't they have the resolve to disfellowship Pastors who are convicted rapists? They have repeatedly installed pastors AFTER their convictions and after having served jail time. These men go against every prescription Paul outlined for being fit to lead.

SantaLucia said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

The SBC has spent more time on this than they have on stopping (or at least disciplining) the well-documented rape, child abuse and sexual grooming cases among their leaders and congregants.

---

The SBC has zero authority and little responsibility over congregants and many leaders. The SBC is an association of individual churches that are independent bodies.

hth

SantaLucia said:

---

Former Baptist. I get it.

If they have the resolve to disfellowship Rick Warren for allowing a woman the title of Pastor, why don't they have the resolve to disfellowship Pastors who are convicted rapists? They have repeatedly installed pastors AFTER their convictions and after having served jail time. These men go against every prescription Paul outlined for being fit to lead.

---

Maybe you don't get this: they have booted Brokeback Church because it is an affiliate church that is no longer following the Word of God, so they want to break any affiliation. Booting Rick Warren would be Brokeback's responsibility.

The SBC doesn't choose pastors of local churches.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

One-Eyed Fat Man said:

---

Apparently you interpretation of scripture is the only one that counts. PCA had a different view on the inerrant word of the Bible.


https://religionnews.com/2016/06/30/what-catalyst-started-the-presbyterian-church-in-america-racism/

---

PCA has zero authority in my life.

hth

---

Me either. Just pointing out how denominations used the Bible to justify slavery. I have trouble with any who pick and choose scripture to justify their actions.

SantaLucia said:

---

Marvin said:

---

Does the SBC not have bigger issues to address? They will be surprised at all the non-Baptists in heaven...

---

The SBC has spent more time on this than they have on stopping (or at least disciplining) the well-documented rape, child abuse and sexual grooming cases among their leaders and congregants.

---

And a new sock is off and running.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

SantaLucia said:

---

Former Baptist. I get it.

If they have the resolve to disfellowship Rick Warren for allowing a woman the title of Pastor, why don't they have the resolve to disfellowship Pastors who are convicted rapists? They have repeatedly installed pastors AFTER their convictions and after having served jail time. These men go against every prescription Paul outlined for being fit to lead.

---

Maybe you don't get this: they have booted Brokeback Church because it is an affiliate church that is no longer following the Word of God, so they want to break any affiliation. Booting Rick Warren would be Brokeback's responsibility.

The SBC doesn't choose pastors of local churches.

---

But they could tell churches who employ any of the few hundred accused leaders that they can no longer be SBC? A lot of have been hired at new churches after a conviction.

https://sbcec.s3.amazonaws.com/FINAL+-+List+of+Alleged+Abusers+-+SBC+REDACTED.pdf

Seems like they're selectively choosing which scriptures to try to follow prescriptively with men getting hired even after multiple issues: https://justiceguardians.legalexaminer.com/legal/david-wayne-farren-listed-in-sbc-abuse-investigation/#:~:text=David%20Wayne%20Farren%2C%20a%20former,serving%20as%20their%20youth%20pastor.

Looks like Santa Lucia is starting a pastoral witch hunt. Let's do this!

If you are following the SBC Convention you'd know they have addressed past abuse at the last 3 conventions. The messengers have set aside millions to address, all new leadership is in charge, churches have been disfellowshipped and just today the messengers overwhelmingly voted to continue All these efforts.

So it is dishonest to say they are addressing only the issue of females holding the Office of Pastor/Elder.

Tramp96 said:

---

to twist scripture in order to justify his positions, and now they want to spread it to the SBC as a whole.

---

LOLOL. If any of yall think this isn't happening in every church on the planet...then...I don't know what to tell you my sweet summer child.

SBC pastor here in Wisconsin. Let me clarify a few things...
1. No SBC member or pastor thinks only SBC folks will be in heaven. That's crazy! Only those who trust in the sacrificial death of Jesus for their sins and are thus transformed by grace through faith are entering heaven. I know a bunch of SBC members who I doubt will be in heaven. I know Catholics, Lutherans, Nondenominational, etc. who will be in heaven.
2. I have been a Baptist pastor for 38 years and have never heard a sermon, or preached one, on the evils of dancing. You have bought into the stereotype fostered by Hollywood which always portrays us as narrow-minded idiots. My own kids attended school dances, etc. with my blessing. The Bible does not forbid drinking alcohol, but it does rightly warn about the dangers of being drunk and the destructive nature of alcoholism. The same can be said about anyting addictive: food, drugs, etc. I don't drink at all because I have officiated too many funerals resulting from alcoholism and drunk drivers along with seeing too many families destroyed by alcoholism. It is my job to preach what the Bible says, and the Bible does warn us about that, so I have preached those sermons (probably not often enough!). I tell this same thing to my children and tell them they will have to make that decision for themselves whether to socially drink or not, but they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions and risk addiction.
3. To say we have spent more time and energy dealing with this issue than the sexual predators in our churches is to speak in complete ignorance of the matter. I have preached sermons over the years calling this out and churches for the most part have taken steps to do background checks on staff and volunteers. Those who say we should throw out pastors who have done so, don't understand that we are a bottom-up organization of churches who cooperate with one another but have no say in who a church calls to serve in a pastoral position. Unlike Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists, we DON'T have a master list of pastors who churches can or can't call as pastors. We DO have a database of those who have abused and strongly encourage our churches to consult it before calling a pastor or staff member, but we can't make a church do this. The problem is that these wicked wolves in sheep's clothing often are not reported to the SBC, so they move along to their next position. The SBC Executive Board released a self-damning report that broke all of our hearts last year revealing there were cover ups of these things by a few members of the elected Executive Board and two gaslighting incidents of victims of sexual abuse employed by the Executive Board in administrative positions. Those folks are no longer on the board, and the ones who helped cover it up to protect their friends have also been purged. We own this dispicable sin and confess it happened. We also confess that we are doing our best to make sure it never happens again (but it probably will because people are sinful). We are not perfect, but we strive to be like Christ.
4. I have had six semesters of Koine Greek (the common Greek in which the New Testament was written) and am pretty fluent in it. I have continued to study it for over 30 years. Yes, the office of deacon is clearly different from the office of elder/pastor/bishop. This can easily be seen in that the requirements given by Paul for the office of elder/pastor/bishop are more stringent than the requirements given for a deacon. If they were the same office, wouldn't the listed requirements be the same? For example, Paul says the pastor/elder/bishop is not to partake of alcohol while the deacon is not to partake of "much alcohol." One is held to a higher standard. And, no, that is not a translation into English issue. It is clearly there in the Greek text.
5. If you want to have a theological debate about the role of women in ministry, baptism, etc. that is for another time and place. The issue of the intergrity and primacy of God's Word is at the heart of who we are as followers of Christ. "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3, NASB).