Before becoming a Southern Baptist, I knew the SBC mostly as a convention that believed in “once saved, always saved” and had strong opinions on women in the pastorate. I was saved in a Baptist church in Irving, Texas at the age of 14 but would not have considered myself a Baptist (much less a Southern Baptist, really) at the time, mainly because I did not know enough about Scripture, theology, tradition, or history to have an opinion.
I worked as a Bible study leader and then youth pastor at a Congregational Methodist church for a total of about 18 months. During this time, I studied Scripture, theology, tradition, and history. To make a long story short, I became a complementarian, charismatic, Baptist Calvinist and stand firmly there today.
As I became more acquainted with Baptist history, one issue stuck out to me like a sore thumb: how we got to the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message’s statements on women in ministry and the home. I am thankful for the SBC’s Conservative Resurgence and our Biblical stance on manhood and womanhood, but not as thankful for the up-and-down events leading up to it.
First, here is the BFM2000′s statement:
Article VI. The Church. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
Article XVIII. The Family. The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.
I strongly and openly affirm the BFM2000 on these issues. For a very basic idea on how I feel about women in ministry, see my post about the controversy at Irving Bible Church.
Now, let’s take a look at the timeline of events regarding women in the SBC:
- 1885: Women are refused admission as messengers at the annual meeting.
- 1888: The Women’s Missionary Union (WMU) forms in the basement of a Methodist church since they could not meet in a Baptist church.
- 1904: Women are allowed to attend classes at Southern Seminary, but could not earn credit or participate in class discussion.
- 1918: Women are allowed to serve as messengers.
- 1929: Women allowed to give the WMU report at the annual meeting (previously delivered by men).
- 1963: Marie Mathis is elected as Second Vice-President, the first woman to hold office.
- 1964: Addie Davis becomes first ordained woman to SBC ministry.
- 1984: A vote in Kansas City passed to adopt a resolution against women in the pastorate, the rationale being that “man was first in creation and the woman was first in the Edenic fall.” This was a pivotal moment in, and probably my only real problem with, the Conservative Resurgence.
- 1995: The WMU is renounced in a letter by Jerry Rankin for cooperating with the CBF missionary education resources and the chairman for the International Mission Board likened their cooperation to an adulteress.
- 1998: The family portion of the BFM is amended to include that women should “graciously submit” to their husbands. Dorothy Patterson, wife of Paige, said, “When it comes to submitting to my husband, even when he is wrong, I just do it. He is accountable to God.”
- 2000: The BFM is revised with the above statements included.
As you can see, there are some highlights and lowlights. This, by no means, is an exhaustive timeline but I believe it outlines the struggle of women in the SBC.
Two events in this timeline were most troubling to me:
- The wording of the 1984 Kansas City rationale - I do believe that the role of women is due to the creative order of Adam first, Eve second; but I would argue that it has nothing to do, at all, with Eve taking the first bite in the Garden. Actually, I believe that it was due to Adam’s lack of God-ordered leadership in the situation. Guess who is blamed in Scripture for the Fall? Adam.
- The Paige-Pressler, Rankin led attack on the WMU – The WMU should be commended for offering help to the CBF, not called an “adulteress” for not submitting to the SBC solely.
Thankfully, I believe this is well behind the SBC. The BFM2000 clearly states the equality and importance of women while describing the role of men and women in the home and ministry. I do think that Mrs. Patterson is a bit off when saying that she submits regardless of her husband’s validity. There are times when the husband should love his wife enough to be wrong and go the way she believes is right (as long as sin or detriment to the family isn’t involved). We must lead strongly but gently.
I pray that we would love our wives and our sisters in Christ as God’s most wonderful creations and not treat them as second-class citizens. I’d even go so far to say that we can learn much from them!
{ 1 trackback }
{ 303 comments }
There are times when the husband should love his wife enough to be wrong and go the way she believes is right
I’m not saying that there aren’t times where a husband realizes that he is wrong and his wife is right nor am I saying that a husband should disregard his wife’s advice or opinions but what you’re saying here sounds more like leadership-by-committee. However, maybe that’s not what you meant and I suspect you will quickly and painlessly get over my disagreeing with you.
Joe,
I am definitely not promoting “by committee” but I am promoting sacrifice and humility rather than dominance.
Bravo
Brandon,
I did not see this comment earlier: “….I am promoting sacrifice and humility rather than dominance.”
Well said.
Interesting post. Don’t have much time to comment now, except to say that Rankin’s rebuke of WMU really belongs in a separate post under WMU and missions or something. The real issue was WMU’s support of non-SBC missionaries, and not the fact that they were (still are) women.
Just as an aside–I’m personally ok with the rebuke of the WMU for supporting the CBF.
I’m with Joe. I was okay with the rebuke of the WMU for supporting the CBF… With that being said, I am okay with them supporting non-SBC organizations, but they need to be like-minded ones.
I was very much in favor of the rebuke of the WMU for offering to support CBF missions.
DAvid
Louis,
A true assessment.
Brandon,
I must say that no one will ever be able to question your bravery in topic selection… talk about going “where angels fear to tread”. This should be interesting…
Grace Always,
lol… Thats what I thoughts.
First, the BFM2000.
Second, Calvinism.
Third, Complementarianism.
This is a great example of doing a cannon ball into the pool before seeing how cold it is!
This IS a discussion-based website isn’t it?
Brandon,
Do you know exactly why those leaders (and many others) were calling out the WMU for its support of the CBF?
Brian,
Due to the CBF’s liberal bent, I assume. However, the WMU was cooperating in evangelism, something no doctrinal difference should hold back.
“something no doctrinal difference should hold back.”
Brandon,
I think you surely know better. What was the point of the BF&M if that is the case? The CBF at that time was and still is led by vanquished expatriots of the SBC who lost their leadership roles during the Conservative Resurgence. Thier doctinal difference were what the CR was all about. There have been some in the WMU who have held strongly to a feminist theology that would effect thier missions emphasis and approach.
Brian,
I love the BFM and CR more than most, mind you. But, we will never agree on your statement there. The Great Commission is more important to me than that. Not saying you’re wrong because it’s your choice on who you evangelize with, but I disagree.
Now, if the CBF were Mormon or another cult… we’d have an agreement.
Brian,
Doctrinal difference was not what the CR was about. It was a power struggle plain and simple. Doctrine was a smokescreen to cover-up the real reason for the CR.
Also, the WMU is not part of the SBC. It is a seperate entity. Yes it has cooperated almost solely with the SBC, but it is not governed by it.
It was doctrinal differences…big ones. I think all you have to do is go to news about the CBF to see the differences. They doubt the Bible’s accuracy. They are debating about whether homosexuality is really wrong, or not. They believe in women pastors…thus disobeying the clear teachings of the Bible. And, there’s a lot more.
David
Volfan007,
They doubt the Bible’s accuracy. Wrong
They are debating about whether homosexuality is really wrong, or not- You are mistaken
They believe in women pastors…thus disobeying the clear teachings of the Bible- Disobeying volfan’s interpretation of scripture.
I also enjoy the way you demonize anyone that has a different opinion than you. They must be in dirrect contact with satan himself or else they couldn’t possibly agree with my righteous opinion.
Brandon,
I really think you need to reconsider your premise about the Great Commission not having any major connection to these doctrinal issues. It does and has. I’m going to try to avoid “spinning a long thread” since the Baptist blogosphere in the past few years at times seems to be an attraction for the mentally ill who post comments incessantly.
Let me ask it this way, do you think it matters in missional implementation among those involved in Acts29? If any theologically conservative mission organization, planting churches in a missions context, do you think it would matter if they agreed on complementarian views in the establishment of churches and the training of leadership?
Those of us who have spent time among moderates and liberals in the SBC know this is kind of big deal. It effects the culture of cooperation in many, many diffeerent ways. Talk to missionaries who are theologically conservative and ask them how these issues effect them.
Brian,
I never said that the CR didn’t have to do with doctrine… It had EVERYTHING to do with it. I appreciate the CR more than you know. Because I’m young doesn’t mean I don’t understand. I spent a lot of time with liberal Methodists and liberal Baptists and I would not hesitate to go on mission with either if lost souls are involved.
Seriously?? No doctrinal difference?? I mean, ok, some doctrinal differences should not hold back from cooperation on all levels. For instance, I could cooperate in building/funding a seminary with someone who had a different take on soteriology (I’m a 5 pointer). Some doctrinal differences should make no difference on some levels. For example, I could go with a person who didn’t believe in credobaptism to a local mall to share the gospel with folks. I probably couldn’t cooperate much more than that.
But to say that you could cooperate with someone in evangelism who denies the bedrock of the faith, the inerrancy of scripture, or who questions the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the blood atonement, the exclusivity of salvation through repentance of sin and faith in Christ alone, or the fact that the bible says sex is only acceptable between one man and one woman in the bonds of marriage (not all CBF’ers but some and they’re welcomed in the CBF) is way, way beyond anything I’d even consider doing.
Joe,
You posed a question here a week or so ago. I think it went something like, ” Can a person go to heaven without repenting of their sins and placing their faith in Jesus Christ alone?”
Can you cooperate in evangelism with a person that answers yes to this question?
It depends. What kind of evangelism? Church planting? Going door to door or to a public mall to pass out tracts and share the gospel? That would be two different kinds of evangelism. As to the first kind, I’d have more questions that I’d need to ask. As to the second, heck yeah I’d cooperate with them to go pass out some tracts and share the gospel.
Thank you Joe. I think that is a very good answer.
Robert,
I have worked with a multitude of non-Baptists and many that were not very conservative in evangelism in many places. But I could never cooperate in any evangelistic effort with a person who did not believe a person must repent of sin and place their faith in Christ alone to go to heaven.
Without believing that salvation is in Christ alone, there is no basis for evangelism. The best one could be doing is benevolent social work, helping people with their temporal needs.
Robert, do you believe a person can go to heaven without repenting of sin and believing the biblical gospel?
CB,
There is one way- Jesus Christ. I remember hearing Muhamed Ali say once that religion was like a body of water. We have rivers, lakes, streams, and oceans. They are all bodies of water and naturally lead to the same place. Won’t he be suprised when he dies and stands and is asked what he did with Jesus Christ.
You can not be good enough. You can not work your way in. You can’t be prayed in after your dead. No one can enter heaven without the saving Grace found in Jesus Christ. Does that answer your question CB?
Robert,
That does answer the question. Thank you.
Brandon,
Did you read my question? There’s more to it how you’ve responded. I get that you’re pro-CR. That’s not the question. I know some fun-loving liberals that are about as adorable as a teddy bear, but when it comes to the way we would go about declaring the gospel or establishing churches, there would be a big differnece in methodolgy. That’s why I brought up Acts29, this is not just an SBC thing. You’re talking about partnering with people who see things much differently. Do you think that Acts29 would be in friendly cooperation with the CBF? I don’t think so. Why would we think its okay for an SBC auxilary organization whose purpose is to promote SBC missions work?
correction: “there’s more to it THAN how you have responded.”
Brian,
Ummmm… I doubt seriously that Acts29 would work with anyone that isn’t Reformed seeing as they are theologically based that way. But, their choice doesn’t dictate mine.
Why would we think its okay for an SBC auxilary organization whose purpose is to promote SBC missions work?
Because the SBC is one fish in a big pond trying to spread the Gospel. WMU did not ditch the SBC or do anything to the detriment of the SBC. They shared resources with the CBF because theirs was superior and the CBF wanted help REACHING THE NATIONS WITH THE GOSPEL.
Is Rankin’s rebuke of the WMU recent??
Because the WMU is supposed to be an auxiliary of the SBC, and it’s supposed to be supportive of SBC missions. If it wants to do it’s own thing, and support other groups, then it doesnt need to be affiliated with the SBC, at all. Espcially if it’s gonna support groups that are theologically liberal.
David
“They shared resources with the CBF because theirs was superior and the CBF wanted help REACHING THE NATIONS WITH THE GOSPEL.”
All caps? Really? You say this so matter-of-factly that it sounds like you’ve done research or you knew someone directly involved or…you’re ignoring what the issues have been.
You still miss why I brought up Acts29- its BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPLEMENTARIAN! NOT because they are reformed. (I thought I’d use caps since you seem to be SO fond of them). Acts29 currently partners with individuals who are SBC church planters. Do you think they would partner with a CBF church planter? No? Why not? Because we would surmise that a CBF church planter would not be complementarian, among other things. If a CBF guy said he was “reformed” it wouldn’t matter, would it? Think with me here, Brandon. Why do you think the SBC severed ties with the Baptist World Alliance? The answer is not “politics”. It is the very issue that you’ve brought up here as well as the view of Scriptures held by several entities belonging to the BWA (including the CBF, which was just being accepted into membership in 2004).
Also, a wife should submit to her husband, unless he tells her to do things that go against the clear teachings of Scripture. I believe this works the same way with how Christians are told to obey the laws of the land. We’re to obey the laws of man, unless they go against the laws of God. Then, we’re to obey God, rather than man. I believe the same is true for a wife. She should follow the leadership of her husband, unless he’s telling her to rob a bank, or to sleep with his best friend, or something else that’s clearly ungodly.
DAvid
“unless he’s telling her to rob a bank, or to sleep with his best friend, or something else that’s clearly ungodly.”
David, sounds like you don’t agree with Dorothy Patterson’s remark totally.
You are on the right track there, in understanding that a woman can, most certainly, ‘clearly’ tell the difference between right and wrong.
Proud of you!
Dr.’s Patterson believe that women can tell the difference in right and wrong, too.
Good grief.
David
Did he forget to tell Dorothy?
L’s,
Have you ever spent one solitary moment with Dorothy Patterson? A statement like that just drips with an odor of sulfur and brimstone.
Brandon,
Also, I’d say that many of things that was not good about how that many SB churches dealt with women was due to the culture of the day. The churches just reflected the culture of the day…sort of like the racism thing of it’s day. Not saying that it was right, but it was just how things were back then.
DAvid
David,
I agree that it was cultural partially, and I agree that there is no excuse. The Bible was as relevant then as it is now, no excuses for it.
A true statement Brandon. But Vol is right. Some things were just rotten back then as are some things rotten now. Every generation seems to have its own “little rotten” to deal with. Or in some cases, sadly, not to deal with.
QUOTE unless he’s telling her to rob a bank, or to sleep with his best friend, or something else that’s clearly ungodly. END QUOTE
I think herein lies much of the problem: I’m not sure a husband has any right “telling” his wife (or anyone else for that matter) what to do. In my house, we politely ask if we would like each other to do something. It makes for a much smoother, effective marriage.
I suspect if you are “telling” your wife to do things, you have not been married very long, or you have been married too long.
Complementarianism does not equal authoritarianism. I think this is what causes much of the problem. I also would hope that this was just a poor choice of words, and not really how you think about the matter.
SSBN,
You’re misreading what I said. You’re not getting the intent of what I was saying, at all. I do not tell my wife what to do. I talk to her about things, and I try to lead her and my family to do the things that I think that God would want us to do, or that I feel is the wisest thing. I do not make anyone do what they dont want to do. BUT, some men do. And, they think that they’re the dictator of the home. That’s exactly what I meant by my statement of “him telling her to rob a bank,” etc. I think that a woman is under no obligation from God to do what her husband is either asking, or telling her what to do; when he’s asking, or telling her to do something that clearly goes against God’s laws. I have heard women say that thier husband was trying to get them to do things that went against the Bible. Have you?
Also, I’ve been very happily married for 27 years. My wife and I are best friends, and we have a great marriage. She would tell you the same, with probably a “he could do better on this, or that” statement.
Thank you, very much.
David
I suspected that was what you meant, but I didn’t want any “attack dogs” jumping onto the “telling” part.
Yes, I have many times had women with non-believing husbands tell their wives to do something that did not honor God. I always told them (and still tell them), to honor God with their hearts and He will “provide a way of escape” (1Cor 10:13).
“I always told them (and still tell them), to honor God with their hearts and He will “provide a way of escape” (1Cor 10:13).
”
Can we conclude from your statement that Matt Baker’s dead wife must not have honored God?
QUOTE I believe that it was due to Adam’s lack of God-ordered leadership in the situation END QUOTE
Whether we like it or not, the Word clearly shows that Eve sinned first and no where is she excused because Adam failed to police her properly.
That may be politically correct, but it is not taught in Scripture. To draw that from the Biblical statements concerning the “sin of Adam” is a leap not made in Scripture. It has the appearance of logic, but not the support of text.
SSBN,
In your opinion, of course.
Brandon,
1 Timothy 2:13… “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
But, it is true, that Adam chose to sin against God. The woman was tricked, seduced, deceived. It was not due to Adam’s inablility to lead her right. There was no sin in the Garden of Eden. Man did not have a sin nature at that time. Eve was deceived, and Adam chose to sin with her.
But, the point is….God has definitely made the sexes different, and they have different, God ordained roles. Women are to be women, and men are to be men. Men are to lead, and women are to follow and help. That is very clear in the Bible.
This does not make women less important. It does not make men more important. It’s just the way God set it up.
David
David,
Totally my opinion, but I think if Adam had stepped in when his wife started talking to a snake who told her to disobey God, he would’ve been leading her the way he should have. She turned and gave him the fruit, she didn’t have to go look for him.
Either way, I agree with you on all else.
What you’re saying is Adam sinned by not being the leader before the first sin. There was no would’ve should’ve before the first sin. Adam could not have failed at leadership or anything else before the first sin.
NotACalvinist,
No. I did not say that. Do you have a real name?
“Jesus Warned, and you wouldn’t listen; Why didn’t you listen.?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE_X2pDRXyY
Another great line coulda been the theme of the SBC Peace Committee in 87: “Talkin causes witnesses.”
Ronnie Floyd needs to go see this movie while the Lord Tarries about his People in NW Arkansas; some of my people too.
Out of Arkansas comes a National Heroine and Floyd and Mike Huckabee need to know about Ree.
Looks like Ree never had the benefit of the WMU or the SBC but she came to virtue somehow. I’m interested in the discussion that ensues in SBC quarters as America gets a chance to see this film in the next few weeks.
Maybe Brandon will do a feature blog here.
Fox,
Instead of your usual citation of others… what’s your personal opinion on the content of my post?
good luck on that one, Brandon.
“What you’re saying is Adam sinned by not being the leader before the first sin. There was no would’ve should’ve before the first sin. Adam could not have failed at leadership or anything else before the first sin.”
Actually it is what he is saying. He just does not know it. If Adam “failed” in his command from God to lead Eve, then that would be his first sin. Obviously. But then, there was no command to lead Eve. So all we have is creation order to suggest leadership. But then animals were created before Eve. So, that is a problem, too.
No, this is explicitly taught in Scripture. My opinion has nothing to do with it.
Group,
If the WMU cannot help the CBF, then the SBC should cut all ties with the BGCT, as well.
Brandon,
Maybe so. I dont know. But, one things for sure…the WMU needs to either be for the SBC, or it doesnt need to be connected with the SBC. And, if it wants to support liberal groups like the CBF, then we most certainly need to have an alternative for our ladies in the SBC to be a part of to support missions in the SBC.
David
David,
With the WMU and the CBF, we’re talking about evangelism and missions… I don’t think any convention or doctrine should hinder Christians cooperating on that front.
“we’re talking about evangelism and missions… I don’t think any convention or doctrine should hinder Christians cooperating on that front.”
You get a little support here from Our Lord, Brandon,
in the Gospel of St. John 17
” . . . that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me ”
Apparently that prayer of Our Lord was for the unity of His people to become a part of their witness of Him to the nations.
“Apparently that prayer of Our Lord was for the unity of His people to become a part of their witness of Him to the nations.”
But He is talking about Spiritual Unity.
Rev Purvis the pastor from Darlington, SC and IMB trustee made the same point Volfan David is making above; made it on video on tape for the world to see if they wanted in the 1993 Inquistion of Dellanna Obrien and three people on her staff.
It was an Ugly thing to witness; but I think Ms. Obrien got on the first rung of the Beatification Process that day for standing Strong against Purvis.
He was narrowing in on the CBF/WMU conserns of the SBC fundamentalist leadership.
That was 17 years ago. I woulda thought you fellows woulda been little further along in your purge, your denominational version of ethnic cleansing by now.
When are you gonna Publicly throw Anne Graham Lotz out of all associations with the SBC?
I dont like Ms. Lotz being a preacher now. I think she’s dead wrong and going against Scripture.
DAvid
On the subject of Anne Graham Lotz,
she has her father’s gift for preaching,
and she has her Father’s gift for preaching.
I can just see Mary Magdalene telling the risen Christ that she cannot follow His request for her to go and announce the good news of the Resurrection to His disciples. Maybe she would say something like ‘I’m sorry Lord, but I am forbidden by the future leadership of SBC to share the Good News with any men.’
You know, she has the traditional orthodox title of ‘the Apostle to the Apostles’, because she chose to obey Our Risen Lord.
There must surely be plenty of other verses in the Bible that can ‘get around’ the role that Mary played in announcing the Good News of the Resurrection, but no one can say that her unique role, as His chosen one, does not exist in Scripture. It can be belittled, it can be mis-interpreted, it can be distorted, but it cannot be denied.
Philip’s daughters were prophets. The Bible puts no limitations in regard to gender on sharing the gospel.
The only limitation the Bible puts on women in ministry is that which exercises spiritual authority of men. Preaching, or prophesying does not seem to be limited to only men in the Scriptures.
My wife preaches to me all the time and she usually right on.
Brandon,
The CBF is liberal…theologically. I would not want to join with them in building a dog house, much less in evangelism and missions. They depart from the Bible. They are full of false teachers. I would not want anything associated with the SBC to be associated with theological liberals, who distort the Bible.
Also, Brandon, the WMU is supposed to be an auxiliary of the SBC. Why would we want them to extend energy and time to work with someone else? It seems to me that they have enough to do with our mission work?
David
David,
The WMU wasn’t exactly getting invited on SBC ski trips, but that’s not the point. I will never agree that theological differences of those kinds should get in the way of the Great Commission.
If they were Mormon or something, I’d understand your point.
Brandon,
Throwing doubts on the inerrancy of the Bible is not big enough for you???? Believing in women pastors is not big enough for you??? Considering whether homosexuality is really sinful or not is not big enough for you???
It is for me…and for many, many more like me in the SBC.
David
David,
Those are big deals theologically, obviously. But, when do we tell Africans or Asians in jungle tribes that they can only hear the Gospel if their theology it’s as we believe it to be.
Look, we can babble back and forth, or admit that we disagree and move on. The GC is more important to me than that, end of discussion. You can disagree and withhold it from people unless the SBC is preaching it… I will not go THAT far with my theology.
Fundamentally, Brandon, the conservative resurgence only made sense if the doctrines we defended were germane to evangelism and the gospel.
That is why I voted for the CR and supported it. No denomination has abandoned a high view of scripture and maintained a commitment to evangelism.
I believe that a high view of scripture’s perfection is fundamental to “tell(ing) Africans and Asians in jungle tribes…”
I never bought the “lets ignore theology and cooperate on evangelism argument.” Then or now.
David Miller,
I’m not discounting that, however I don’t think it’s as black and white and most of the people here are making it.
Also, I respect your opinion more than most on here.
I have to agree with Brandon. I am not inviting them to join my church, or attaned a seminary class with me. I want them to know about saving faith in Christ Jesus. To worry about doctrinal differences outside this important Gospel is putting the cart before the horse.
I appreciate that, Brandon. Here’s my view. The SBC is only one fishing boat in the ocean. We are not the only one. We may be the biggest boat, perhaps, but whether we are the best is a judgment call someone else will have to make.
But, we are one boat. On that boat, we choose the deck hands. Only those who are in agreement with our core beliefs and philosophy serve on our boat.
Is the WMU part of the SBC fishing effort? That’s something we can debate. But I don’t see anything wrong with the IMB or the SBC demanding that the WMU either bring itself in line with our theology and philosophy or find another boat to fish on.
Frankly, up here in Iowa, we hear precious little about the WMU. (At least in Sioux City). I would bet that there are not 5 women in my church who have any idea what a WMU is, though we have a very active women’s ministry.
All this meandering to say that I do not have a problem with the SBC or the IMB calling the WMU to doctrinal accountability. We are not the only boat in the ocean, but we have some standards and beliefs that those who fish with us must abide by.
David Miller,
I agree that doctrinal accountability is important. I was the one who got blasted for saying the BFM2000 should be binding!
BUT, in this instance I think GC work isn’t so black and white. Would I hire a CBF pastor into my church plant or to teach at a seminary if I were Patterson or Mohler? No! In my opinion, the WMU wasn’t dealing with SBC internally in that regard, they were dealing with the bigger picture.
Brandon, I’m afraid your days are numbered in the SBC.
Get in touch with Wade Burleson and Ben Cole. You must understand Mohler and Ronnie Floyd will find ways of silencing your dissent. They will start ignoring you until you go away and then say it was God’s will.
Brandon, I have no idea where you minister or anything like. But is the WMU relevant where you are?
You seem to be willing to broach difficult topics, after all!
David,
I appreciate your analogy, however it is very weak. It is one thing to “fish” to make money or to provide food. We are “fishing” for the benefit of the “fish”. If I truly desire to see everyone come to know Christ, I really don’t care what boat brings ‘em in. After that I will choose which deck hands I want to work with.
Stephen,
So what are you, the liberal version of Volfan or CB? You don’t seem to agree with them, but you sure sound like them.
Dave,
Sounds like a leading question.
I live in Dallas so take what you will from that, but is the WMU very relevant anywhere now?
Fox,
I don’t think I’m in any sort of dissent from the conservative SBC by disagreeing with the handling of the WMU case.
Let me also point out to the group that the purpose of this post is to celebrate the SBC’s stance on gender roles.
So, what’s the difference between Mormon error and CBF error?
Error is error.
There is a difference between “not attacking the CBF” and joining with them. As David correctly points out, the CBF error is so deep and so amiss from God’s clear teaching that joining with them would be a sanction for teaching that is clearly outside of the Bible’s teaching.
You fellows aren’t serious, else there wouldn’t be all the ties of Mohler and Dobson, Richard Land, George and the Manhattan Declaration to Glenn Beck.
Check out that great paragraph about JOe McCarthy and Father Coughlin’s coloring book as the kind of history Manhattan Declaration, Beck and by association SBC endorsement of Barton Wallbuilders etc employ.
As Aretha Franklin said: “Who’s Zoomin Who?
And she was a Baptist Preacher’s daughter/
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2988/glenn_beck%E2%80%99s_%E2%80%98social_justice%E2%80%99_heresies/
Steve,
You give Aretha “A Little Respect.” Don’t bring her into this.
SSBN,
In my opinion, the CBF is not heretical, only in error on my interpretation of Scripture.
Unlike Mormons, they do not deny the Trinity or God as the only diety. They wouldn’t say that any man is on par with Jesus as they do about Joseph Smith. They wouldn’t claim that Satan is Jesus’ brother. I could go on.
BIG difference.
You’re right if you have a meter for how much error is acceptable. Sort of like the FDA telling us how many “rat hairs” are allowed in a hamburger.
In my opinion if all they differ is with “your interpretation of Scripture” there would be no problem since your interpretation is not the standard.
However, I feel there heresy, while less developed at this time, is no less dangerous.
You can feel free to participate with them as much as you like since you are autonomous. But keep in mind, “a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf.”
Mormons do not believe in the same Gospel as do Christian evangelical organizations. Niether do Budhists, Hindus, etc…
While evangelical Christian denominations disagree on some important doctrinal issues, the hold to the same Gospel of salvation through faith in Christ alone. I would gladly cooperate with my methodist, presbyterian, independant baptist, etc.. brothers or sisters to lead another person to that realization. We are not talking about opening churches with those you have theological differences with. Just sharing the good news together.
Someday, Stephen, you are going to make a simple comment – one that expresses a viewpoint and makes a clear point, without irrelevant links to someone else’s opinion.
At that moment, I will have a coronary and die of joy.
Don’t die on me now, but if I were to be as clear as Richard Jackson was in the corridors of the SBC ExCom in Nashville in 89; then I guess I would enjoy even less hospitality here at the Voices than I do Now.
I thought the “tragedy of the SBC” quote was pretty clear.
I guess I will live another day.
Dave,
Hallelujah and pass the bisquits, Brother. You have made the greatest statemen of the day in this fine statement.
David
I love it when you talk about others distorting the Bible. It is so ironic and hilarious.
Robert; be careful when you speak directly and with clarity; they don’t go in for that kinda stuff here at the Voices.
Danger — Warning — The Space Vehicle is about to explode!!!!! Danger — Warning — Truth and real issues will get you in touble!!!!!
I love it—–keep up the good work, David.
It’s about time people could look reality square in the face and I commend you for giving the opportunity!!!!!!
“The only limitation the Bible puts on women in ministry is that which exercises spiritual authority of men. ”
I thought Jesus Christ was the spiritual authority of all believers?
I enjoy reading this only occasionally, so I may have missed the boat. I have seen some discussion about SBC folks not cooperating with Mormons.
Do you (any of you) think it was right for Liberty to invite a mormon (Glenn Beck) to address their graduates?
http://sbcvoices.com/liberty-university-presents-glenn-beck/
Scott,
Had a huge problem with it.
Group,
“Error begets error…”
If the Self-Governing Southern Baptist Churches were doing the evangelism and missions work that God has called the Church to do… and not paying “Para-Church” Organizations (IMB, NAMB, WMU) to do it on their behalf, we would not be having much of this discussion about who the Para-Church Organizations we support should be doing missions work on our behalf with.
“… first take the log out thy own eye”
Grace Always,
Greg, I’m not sure your assessment of the IMB and NAMB being “parachurch” organizations is accurate according to SBC polity.
It may be close in regard to the WMU.
SSBN,
If the SBC, and its agencies, are not a Church (and the SBC has historically said they are not) then what are they? They must be something…
They are what they were established to be: a cooperation of autonomous churches to do together what they could not do alone.
Our small church could not even fully support one SBC missionary. The problem with calling the IMB and NAMB a “parachurch organization” is that the only authority they have come from messengers of the churches.
I guess it would be a contest of semantics to belabor the point. I just think you imply a “disconnect” when you use the term and I imply an “extension.”
Same word, different emphasis.
By the way, you are free to fund missionaries at the local level, but you will no doubt find it is very expensive and extensive to put a missionary on the field (fully funded) for 4 years at a stretch.
I choose to use the IMB and NAMB process as a matter of stewardship. I view them as an accountable ministry of my church to the extent that we are cooperating with thousands of other like-minded church. That is not typically how a “parachurch organization” is run.
SSBN
I understand their purpose, and I fully support their work…
I “purposefully” choose to use the title “Parachurch Organization” when discussing the SBC and her various agencies in order to make it clear that the SBC is in reality a missions facilitating organization (and nothing more). The SBC is not a Church or a Denomination… it is a Convention of Autonomous Local Churches… Therefore, all ministries should flow from and be accountable to the Local Churches.
Our missions facilitating organizations should be providing opportunities for all Local Churches to partner together in various missions efforts, and not doing missions on their behalf. They should be providing opportunities for the wide diversity of churches within the SBC to partner together to do the various missions work that they are passionate about, and not trying to dictate to all what we Southern Baptist will support and what we will not support.
The desire of some to exert control over the Local Churches of the SBC by denying or limiting their participation in the SBC, or who they are allowed to partner with, is not healthy for the Convention… and is in my opinion the root of much of the division we are now experiencing. Again, in my opinion, this desire for control over the Local Churches comes from a misunderstanding of the very nature of the SBC; being a Convention of “Free Churches” and not a Denomination.
Grace Always,
Holy Cow, Batman—just when I thought the monkey had climbed to the top of the tree—they got a ladder and climbed even higher!!!!! Hit the climb lever and get the Batplane to 30,000 feet–fast!!!!!!!!! We’re gonna hit their ladder and get bananas on the windscreen!!!!! Please, dear God—help us!!!!!!!
This one continues a step 1-2-3 into fundamentalist monkey tree climbing: BF&M 2000 / Calvnism / Women submissive.
One thing about this series—it is certainly not dealing with things which don’t matter—even if they are a diversion from really working a partners with a Saving Saviour and one another!!!
I totally concur with the outline given on women influencing the SBC. Very accurate!!!!
What it fails to divulge is the way men could have cared less about missions when women wanted it to happen in real ways—-and they did!!!!
Any arrogant “husband-head-of-the-house” fundamentalist has failed to notice in the church conference how many men raise their hand after being elbowed in the side by their “submissive” wife.
Let’s admit something gentlemen: Women have something given by God which all men want—women have the power to control it’s availability—ergo: Women rule!!!!!
I have been married almost 43 years (since August 1968). My wife and I enjoy our relationship as long as I get the last word = “Yes, Dear!!!”
If any of you fools see it otherwise, enjoy your place on the couch!!!!!
Gene,
I’m sorry you haven’t led your wife Biblically for 43 years… Feel a bit sorry for her.
But the bigger question still remains: Why don’t you stop reading this blog seeing as you think it’s so pointless and unintelligent? Feels like you’re wasting your time and ours.
Brandon,
“I’m sorry you haven’t led your wife Biblically for 43 years… Feel a bit sorry for her.”
Please, no more comments like this.
Gene,
I think you need to cool it a bit. Your last few threads have gotten a little out of hand.
Matt,
Brandon is one of the most level minded posters here. At least from what I have seen during my week or so here. If you want to chastise, try Volfan or CB. They are much more confrontational from ignorance mostly. I am sure Brandon doesn’t need my help, but he seems to give me hope that I can speak with someone that I disagree with in an agreeable way.
So, please remove thyself from his back.
Robert,
Would you define ignorance in this context for me, if you please?
Robert,
Never mind. You need not answer. I just read your comments above about the CR not being about theology. Same liberal mantra, just another anonymous speaker. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry CB,
Bad choice of words. I didn’t mean ignorance. Don’t know what I was thinking when I typed it. I meant mean spiritedness, if that’s a word. You almost always seem to be very un-pastorlike with your posts. That’s just what I have seen.
Just for the record, I am a conservative Southern Baptist whose experience and research supports MY belief that the CR was a politically based movement veiled by doctrinal accountability. It is my opinion, and I know that there are many out there that don’t share it. The evidence out there is just too hard for me to ignore and it has shaped my opinion. That doesn’t make me liberal.
Robert:
I hope in your readings you have looked at Harold Bloom’s The American Religion, some key excerpts about the SBC are easily googled.
And Robert Marsh’s reluctant address to his deacons in 90 at 2nd Ponce De Leon, googled in the Doug Weaver history Don’t blow grey smoke on my blue skies.
The network of Helms and Pressler for the Council for Natiional Policy was an insidious aspect of the SBC Takeover.
Stephen,
Any original thoughts?
“I’m sorry you haven’t led your wife Biblically for 43 years… Feel a bit sorry for her.”
I am even more sorry to hear your wife is not led spritually by the indwelling Holy Spirit. She is stuck with the spiritual leadership of another depraved human.
Matt,
Just speaking truth, bro. But maybe a bit uncalled for nonetheless.
OK Robert,
I understand. I am mean and “unpastor” like. Well, that’s OK. I see how guys like you have that opinion. If I was a guy like you, I would probably have the same opinion.
And I would not call you a liberal at this point. I have no idea what you believe about the fundamentals of the faith. But based on your comments related to the CR, it is my opinion that if you are a conservative, you are somewhat ignorant as to the truth of the history of its necessity. Now, that does not mean you are ignorant about everything in life. But it does mean you are ignorant about the CR. But, hey, you are not alone, if that makes you feel better.
Sorry if I offended. As I said just my observation. And as I said, I have read all the evidence available, books on both sides. All of that coupled with my personal experience has lead me to my opinion. So it’s really a stretch to call it ignorance unless something new has come out about it in the last year or so that would change my opinion.
A difference of opinion when faced with the same evidence does not equal ignorance. It equals a different opinion. If it helps any, that is the part that I find unpastoral. The need to call others ignorant because they have a differing view.
Robert,
Herein is the problem. You said:
“A difference of opinion when faced with the same evidence does not equal ignorance. ”
You and I are not “faced with the same evidence.” Were we faced with the same evidence, you would then agree with me as to the absolute necessity of the CR.
In addition, I did not say you are stupid. I said you were ignorant of the reality of the need of the CR. I talk to people most every day who are ignorant of the gospel. Does that constitute me being “unpastoral” because I say they are ignorant of the gospel? I should hope not.
My use of the word “ignorant” in reference to you not knowing the historic reason, purpose and need for the CR does not constitute me saying you are stupid or dumb as a coal bucket. It simply means you give evidence in your comments that you are in fact ignorant of the need of the CR.
If I were to say to you that you are probably “ignorant” as to how to make an eight hundred yard shot to the middle of the ten ring, would that constitute me being “unpastoral” in my evaluation? No. It would simply mean that you have not yet learned how to make that shot.
On the other hand, if I said: “Robert, let’s get together on a sunny Saturday, all day long, and I will enlighten you as to how to shoot and hit long distance targets and I will tell you the facts of the need of the CR.” I will even provide lunch and a fine big watermelon on ice for us to enjoy as we indulge in the “Sport of Kings” and you learn of the greatest and best turn around period in the History of the SBC.
Robert would that be “unpastoral”?
Robert, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. Come on down to Birmingham. We will make a day of it. What do you say?
CB,
Now be honest. You just want to shoot and eat watermelon and you’ll find any excuse to do so. I’ll quit with the “unpastoral”. I have decided I like you even if I think your dead wrong. Hanging around with people that agree with you is boring.
Why do you say stuff like this? You are constantly making off-colored comments like this. it seems to be part of your nature. You stated recently that you led your grandsons to Christ. Would you want them to read lewd comments like this from you?
My comment #93 was directed toward Gene. Sorry for any confusion.
Let’s admit something gentlemen: Women have something given by God which all men want—women have the power to control it’s availability—ergo: Women rule!!!!!
You know, Dave chided me, rightly, for calling you human garbage the other week. I’m quite unkind to liberals and moderates, intentionally I might add, but you have the absolute foulest mouth of any person I’ve ever read on here.
Thanks for proving me right.
For the most part I don’t have a big problem with the SBC being against women in the pastorate. Although I get a kick out of the scriptural gymnastics being played everytime the womens issue gets raised. Why men even get concerned about women submitting is a mystery to me, I have a hard enough time obeying the command Paul gave me – to Love my wife in a sacrificial way. I’ll let my wife worry about her command.
I know a couple guys who do seem to be concerned about their wives submitting, of course their wives seem to be the ones who are the neck that turns the head where they want it to go.
Foxy actually makes a couple great points, if the SBC is so concerned about WMU (or BGCT ) theology, stop taking their money. Fact is $$ trumps theology or so it seems.
I lost last vestige of respect for how SBC treats women when Paige fired best history proff in SBC ( Karen Bullock ) and then followed it up w Klouda a few years later
Joe,
I’d say men worry about their bwives submitting because Paul commands them to and we want to stick to what the Word says. Now, you can interpret differently, but that’s why I “worry” about it.
“I’d say men worry about their bwives submitting because Paul commands them to and we want to stick to what the Word says.”
And you feel you can be the Holy Spirit for her?
And why do you ignore Eph 5:21? Do you think you are exempt?
I’m a complementarian. But I don’t think men generally worry about their wives submitting because they care what the Word says. I allow for exceptions to this, that there may be men truly concerned for God’s glory who worry about their wives’ submission. But it’s usually the man’s sinful heart that leads him to worry about his wife. For if he was really concerned with God’s glory and the fulfillment of his Word, he’d start with the one place he should know is lacking in both, and that is his loving his wife like Christ loved the church. Now that is the task that a husband will never fulfill in this life.
The Bible never tells husbands to worry about their wives submission. It tells wives to submit. God doesn’t need to go through a husband to speak to a wife. I have found that the more concerned I am with using everything in my power to love my wife like Christ loved the church for her benefit, she gladly submits to my loving leadership. I’ve never concerned myself with my wife’s submission, yet she is one of the most submissive wives I could imagine.
I met Karen Bullock once and the Stephen fellow Paige let go about the same time.
Champion is right, with the Patterson formula of administration, by matriculation SBC will be one big Monkey farm in no time; faster than many may allow.
Fox,
You seem to express a lot of opinions and present them as fact.
I had a six point reply for you Brandon but somebody came to the door and it got lost in cyberspace.
Point six I think was Randall Balmer and his 2002 CT effort on Baylor which confirmed Point 5 about his great friend Mark Noll, the Jonathan Edwards scholar who came to Ridgecrest in 87 and said in effect but much more diplomatic the way inerrancy was used in the SBC was a bunch of hokum.
Noll, no liberal as he had good longstanding at Wheaton before going to Notre Dame.
Brandon
You are correct that Paul commands them to, however the them he commands is the women. He commands the men to love their wives the way Christ loved the church – that is he died for the church. You show me one man that has any issues with his wife submitting while he is busy dying for his wife and I’ll give you a dollar!
Joe,
Correct. But does He also correct, direct, and teach His Church in a Godly way? I don’t think we disagree really, but I think Jesus was more than a dying man on a cross.
Further, I’d say that if the wife isn’t submitting it makes it impossie for us to lead so we should be concerned that she is doing her part. Remember the Proverbs verse about a man being better in the attic than in the house with his quarrelsome wife?
The command for us to Love our wives as Christ loved the church is so scary to me that I can’t even fathom worrying about my wife submitting or not. I think Paul had a reason for speaking separately to wives and husbands, it’s too bad there have not been as many books written to unloving men, or something put into the BFM about unloving men
“Further, I’d say that if the wife isn’t submitting it makes it impossie for us to lead so we should be concerned that she is doing her part. Remember the Proverbs verse about a man being better in the attic than in the house with his quarrelsome wife?”
Brandon, You look young. You sound very young, too. No offense but this is a rebuke. What you wrote above is so insulting to both men and women, I would suggest you not preach on it.
BTW: You think Solomon wrote Proverbs? He had 600 wives. I suppose “quarrelsome” was an every day occurance at the palace.
“You are correct that Paul commands them to, however the them he commands is the women. He commands the men to love their wives the way Christ loved the church – that is he died for the church.”
This seems like an easy command today because how many of us guys are going to be in a position to actually die for our wives? However, look at this command through 1st Century eyes and the typical household structure and operations and it means something much different.
The only place actual authority is mentioned in marriage is 1 Corin 7 and too bad for you guys, the gals get the same authority.
Helpful historical info and encouragement.
Bradley,
Thank you! That was my goal. Your kindness is a nice change pace around here… Comment more often!
Reply #59: QUOTE Also, I respect your opinion more than most on here. END QUOTE
Shouldn’t we respect all those who take time to comment? I really do not care if “you” respect me or not. You obviously have a hard time engaging with people who call you to task for opinions you offer.
I even try to respect Brother Fox — which should qualify me for sainthood
Pauls command to submit was to wives. His command to Love was to husbands. I’ve only been at this marrige thing for 30 years or so, but when I am truly loving my wife I have less than zero issues with how she treats me. When I think about how Christ loved the church it was his sacrificial love for the church and how he gave everything up for it.
Men being worried about womens submission is misguided power trip aided and abetted by the COuncil for biblical manhood.
Joe,
Okay, you just went from logical to emotional. No need to start bashing those that you disagree with theologically or otherwise. I know personally leaders in the CBMW and men who subscribe to it and they do not treat it as a power trip. That’s as much of a generalization as saying that Eternal Security teaches a license to sin when Biblically that is not true. I’m sure some abuse it, but tahts their issue and not the idea’s issue. Let’s go ahead and blame Christ for the Crusades while we’re at it.
Brandon
my point is that we are not lookig at this passage in context and that we spend way to much time in print and conversation dealing w the wives and not nearly enough dealing w the husbands and their much tougher responsibilty. The cbmw is not innocent here
Joe,
How much CBMW literature have you read? They are VERY clear on the man’s role in being loving, sacrificial, and protective to their wife. Anyway, we don’t need to go round and round here. From what I know of your theology and preaching, I know we could do this all day and in the end you would believe you and I, me. Keep preaching the Word, brother.
Just to point out–you do realize you’ve called Jim by the name Joe at least 4 times in this comment thread. I’m just sayin’….
JIM!
Sorry I called you Joe so many times. I think I got it stuck in my head that this was Joe Champion, the pastor. Disregard my comments about your preaching haha…
Thanks, Mr. Blackmon.
Jim, I don’t disagree about the need to emphasize loving our wives first. But your comments about the CBMW make we wonder with Brandon if perhaps you have read more of what certain people say ABOUT the CBMW than actually reading what they say.
QUOTE Foxy actually makes a couple great points, if the SBC is so concerned about WMU (or BGCT ) theology, stop taking their money. Fact is $$ trumps theology or so it seems. END QUOTE
This is an easy myth to perpetuate. When Fox was asked to present even one the SBC receives money from that has a woman pastor, he did not name a soul.
Fact is: this and your post about the firing of two professors are offered to imply something that is NOT true: that is, there is no integrity in those who are conservative.
Put up or shut up as they say.
SSBN,
Who is this addressed to?
This is one of those, “If the shoe fits” things.
SSBN,
Well, no, because you said “your post about to professors being fired…” so that would imply that your speaking to the author of it and saying he has no integrity.
Now, I didn’t write that but the one who did should be addressed so that they can offer a reply.
I never implied any such thing. Are you looking for an offense to take up?
Remember, “only if the shoe fits.”
CB Scott can name several leading percentage givers in Alabama whose staffs resist BFM 2000.
There are no secrets about it.
And our friend John Killian could name about ten without blinking.
Some of my favorite Baptist heroes are women.
Tiffany Croft, Sheri Klouda, Christa Brown, Debbie Kaufman, and yes, Lottie Moon, whom you guys just tried to put ‘in her place’ with some of your comments.
Strangely, Lottie Moon doesn’t seem to fit where you want to put her.
All those collections of money for missions she inspires?
Where are the MEN that could inspire those offerings to the missions?
I think Lottie Moon should be recognized by all denominations as one of the great women of the Church. Yeah, so in the eyes of some Baptist men, she ‘made a mistake’ teaching the gospel to everyone? including men? did she ? . . . when she gave all her food away to her beloved Chinese and died of starvation for love of them?
She wasn’t following the example of Our Lord in the Scriptures? Please.
What some men don’t understand about Christian women, is a LOT.
Two of the greatest preachers on the planet are women; the Episcopalians Fleming Rutledge and Barbara Brown Taylor.
I hope,Christiane, you will get your hands on Rutledge stellar collection of sermons, Help My Unbelief; all great exercises in Preaching Biblical Texts.
Thank you, Steven, for the references.
SSBN,
Clearly I am not trying to find a reason for anything since I knew it wasn’t about me. Just thought your comment was vague about who it was aimed at.
Brandon
As the old saying goes, just dont call me late for dinner! I am a simple layman – however this site has become a favorite of mine over the past few months.
I am the one who made the comments about the two SWBTS professors. I will be happy to put up.
As I said earlier, I agree with the BFM that men should be pastors, I think a fair reading of the scriptures supports this (although early church history seems to have had a few churches meeting in womens houses and the supposition that those women may have been the pastors – but I digress) The problem that I see with the BFM stating that only men should be pastors is that SWBTS took that statement and in my opinion perverted it to say that only men could teach in the school of theology – hence the firing of Bullock (Baptist History)and later Klouda (Hebrew). Bullock I have met several times, she is conservative theologically and a great professor – dont believe me, ask Bart Barber. Klouda was under the mistaken belief that she was one of them and was therfore “safe” – not so much. Although to not put words in Barber’s mouth – he supported SWBTS in removing Bullock, but recently sang a praise or two of her on his blog.
I actually do read a good bit of what comes out of the CBMW, admittedly knowing that I dont agree with them on much does lend me to a bias against them.
Why is it do you think that the conservative blogs spend so much time talking about women needing to be submissive, but so little about what it really means for a man to love his wife as Christ loved the church.
If man is to truly be the leader of the home, does it matter that a wife wont submit (whatever that really means). Wont his self sacrifice/love for his wife have her totally on board with him?
Brandon, to be honest, I do not remember who it was aimed at. It actually wasn’t “aimed” exclusively at anyone, which is why I included the quote.
The part about “put up or shut up” was aimed at a poster who attacked the leadership of the SBC for a lack of integrity by accepting money from churches with women pastors. Having been involved in that fight for years in California, I simply asked for the names of the churches.
My guess is: no such churches exist — at least not in plain view of the denominational leadership.
Jim,
Let me try and break your comment down into sections:
1) I think everyone’s biases cloud their judgment for the most part, welcome to the club!
2) I don’t think that church history is the reference on woman pastors because they could’ve been wrong, too.
3) It’s sad that the SWBTS ladies were pushed out. Honestly, I understand why it happened considering the SBC views of women over men. I wish that they could’ve at least been relocated to a women’s ministry department (which Mohler approved at SBTS).
4) I can only say from personal experience that a big reason why I have focused in the past on women’s roles is because of the shift of woman power/feminism stuff that poisons our culture. I do, however, spend most of my time working on younger guys on how to be Biblical men which I focus mostly on them having a 2 Tim. 2:22-26 attitude.
5) In theory we can hope that our sacrifice would be enough but I think, still, if the woman doesn’t understand her role and the Proverbs 31 deal then she can still hinder her husband’s leadership.
QUOTEThe problem that I see with the BFM stating that only men should be pastors is that SWBTS took that statement and in my opinion perverted it to say that only men could teach in the school of theology END QUOTE
Jim, this is a fair analysis, even though I don’t completely embrace your conclusions. My opinion, though I’ve never talked with Dr. Patterson about it, is that SWBTS (my Alma Mater) made a distinction between “teaching in general,” and “teaching men in preparation for ministry.”
You may not agree that this distinction is valid, but it is a distinction SWBTS trustees saw as important. I think that the distinction has merit. I understand that you may not agree.
In all cases mentioned, the people involved were treated with graciousness and equity. That does not get as much press on the blogs.
In general, I would not want to study theology from someone who has never had pastoral experience — man or woman. Every seminary professor I had at SWBTS had pastoral experience, or was currently involved in the pastoral ministries of a local church.
I feel I received a broader expression of theology that way.
SSBN
You stated:
In all cases mentioned, the people involved were treated with graciousness and equity.
I say – not so much, I know more than I can say which is a not a good thing to do on a blog, but be that as it may. Bullock I know was very hurt about the way that things were handled, but she did and does take the high road
you also stated:
In general, I would not want to study theology from someone who has never had pastoral experience — man or woman.
Neither taught “theology” – one was Baptist History and the other Hebrew – both subjects happened to be in the theology dept. I would agree with you had they been NT, OT or preaching professors.
However it is now water under the bridge – except that it was the BFM2000 that was twisted totally out of what I think was intended (both these ladies signed the BM2000 and taught in accordance with it) that caused them to be fired. And until Patterson came on the scene those same trustees had no problem with either Bullock or Klouda.
Brandon
You stated
4) I can only say from personal experience that a big reason why I have focused in the past on women’s roles is because of the shift of woman power/feminism stuff that poisons our culture. I do, however, spend most of my time working on younger guys on how to be Biblical men which I focus mostly on them having a 2 Tim. 2:22-26 attitude.
5) In theory we can hope that our sacrifice would be enough but I think, still, if the woman doesn’t understand her role and the Proverbs 31 deal then she can still hinder her husband’s leadership.
My only encouragement to you is that you spend more time developing what Paul was speaking to the men – and making sure that they understand how to love thier wives as Christ loved the church, they do that and they will have few problems with even the most liberated of women
Nice coversation – I’ve actually got to work tomorrow!
QUOTE Neither taught “theology” END QUOTE
I’m not sure how your Church History (not history) and Hebrew were taught, but in my classes they were taught from a theological perspective — that’s kind of what seminary is all about.
We are not talking about a “secular institution” concerned only with deciminating information. We are talking about a place where the primary thrust is spiritual formation.
While I respect your right to disagree, I think this is an important difference.
Jim,
Since women’s lib entered our society in the 60′s, marriages have been so much better. lol. Divorce rate is extremely high today… after years and years of women learning to not be submissive, and men learning to be more womanly. Yea, that’s working…not!
I agree with you that a lot of men in our society dont really know how to be men. They’re confused with what they hear from society, and from what they hear from lily livered, mamby pamby, girlie men pastors and TV and movie writers and psychologists, etc., who’s nicknames are Mr. Milquetoast. They are encouraged to be more sensitive and womanly everywhere they turn. Or, a lot of men grow up with no Dad in the home…with no male role model at all.
Our society has it all twisted up. Men should be loving, caring, strong leaders. Women should be loving, caring nurturers. Men should be the head of the home. Women should be the heart of the home. Men should lead. Women should follow and support. This is the way the Bible wants it to be. But, like all things, our society resists the ways of God…does it their way…and messes everything up.
The divorce rate is tearing families apart in our society…hurting children…hurting families…hurting churches. The world’s way sure aint right.
David
His only salvation from inpregnating one of these horny creatures
You and your filthy mouth. It amazes me that you’re allowed to post such lewd comments. Why don’t you go rent a clue just to see what it feels like to have one and try to remember that this is not an adult content blog.
Gene,
I would have to agree with Joe on this one. Please exercise discretion when commenting. We have an admin around anywhere?
You rebuking someone for any type of commenting is laughable.
So Volfie
you think that divorce is the natural result of women not being submissive. I also seem to read that men are not exercising their leadersip. I would say the cause of that is that men are falling woefully short on carrying out Pauls command to the men on Eph 5:25-29. Those are the verses Paul is writing to us. If we actually took those verses seriously the divorce rate would plummet, no matter how “liberated” our wives are
To be quite frank with you as far as i’m concerned Eph 5:22-24 don’t exist at least for me. Those verses are written to wives, of which I not one and never will be , to carry out pauls command to me is so incredibly daunting it scares me to death!
At the end of the day I know that if I love my wife as Paul commands everything else in our relationship will be fantastic
Jim,
Maybe you didnt read what I said in my comment above? Maybe? I said that men arent being the men that God wants them to be. I agree. And, if a man is not being the man that God wants him to be, then it will result in all kinds of marital trouble.
David
Jerry Vines member at West Rome (Ga), Susan Shaw, could bring all yall up to speed on great many aspects of this thread.
She talked to women all across the SBC including many that went into exile; grounded in conversations with her Mother’s Sunday School class at West Rome, Where Adrian Rogers politicked in 1979 giving his sermon on secular humanism among others.
I hope Brandon, you and Christiane and Lydia, will get a copy of the book; and anybody else who mighta read it; please chime in.
This is a very helpful post, I think we should all own up to these mistakes in our history. I guess the real question is what will the role of women be going forward. Does the SBC want women leading/serving at the denominational level?
Also, you should write another post dealing with post 2000 events.
I haven’t had time to read all the comments, so please excuse me if this has already been talked over.
Tony–
I, too, am somewhat fresh to this stream of comment.
I can assure you that, based on everything done since 1979–there will be NO PLACE for ordained women officially in the SBC. However, when Mrs. Patterson (Dorothy) told Paige to get his old hound dog out of the SEBTS President’s home—-it happened immediately!!!
Here is the inconsistency:
(1) They talk of a wider tent, then kick out or castigate any church having a ordained famale as pastor or co-pastor.
(2) Patterson had a very capable female professor whom he kicked out at SWBTS upon his arrival. Only the separation of church and state kept the courts from ringing his chimes and putting a financial burden on the Seminary it deserved in my opinion!
(3) I have yet to see any of the CR bunch admitting it was women who stood at the foot of the cross to the very end / women who buried Jesus’ body / women who had the guts to go to the tomb on Sunday morning whilc disciples still hid and cowered.
(4) The WMU, which has been the backbone of SBC mission funding, has become persona non-grata because they refuse to work ONLY with the SBC–and under their TOTAL CONTROL.
(1) They talk of a wider tent, then kick out or castigate any church having a ordained famale as pastor or co-pastor.
I’m sorry, I missed the part where that is a bad thing. If you want a woman pastor, go to the CBF. Simple, n’est pas?
(2) Patterson had a very capable female professor whom he kicked out at SWBTS upon his arrival. Only the separation of church and state kept the courts from ringing his chimes and putting a financial burden on the Seminary it deserved in my opinion!
I don’t agree with this decision entirely or how it was done.
(3) I have yet to see any of the CR bunch admitting it was women who stood at the foot of the cross to the very end / women who buried Jesus’ body / women who had the guts to go to the tomb on Sunday morning whilc disciples still hid and cowered.
Which doesn’t mean that Paul’ clear prohibition against women serving as leaders in the church is not applicable. Of course, it’s not like facts really mean much to you, huh?
(4) The WMU, which has been the backbone of SBC mission funding, has become persona non-grata because they refuse to work ONLY with the SBC–and under their TOTAL CONTROL.
I was glad to see the WMU rightly rebuked for cooperating with the CBF. If you want to partner with churches that don’t believe the word of God, that’s your business of course. But they had no business wringing their hands and poking out their bottom lips because they were rightly called on the carpet for it.
Joe,
I have a question. I promise you that it is genuine and not meant to be a slant. I really want to know how you deal with this scripture.
In 1 Corinthians 11:1-10 Paul gives direction to women on how they are to prophesy in worship. (The word preach and prophesy are similar here) If Paul believes that women are not to preach, why does he give them instruction on how to do so?
Not having the passage in front of me and just answering off the cuff–the prohibition is not against women teaching or having authority. It’s against teaching or having authority over men. So if an older women was teaching a bible study class of younger women or a woman was teaching a class with children, that would be an appropriate usage of the gift of teaching/prophesing.
The scripture does not address women teraching a Bible study class. It adresses women prophesying (preaching) in the midst of the whole congregation. Paul instructs both women and men in this passage how to do it appropriately. My question remains. If Paul’s previous directions are interpreted to mean that women are not to preach or be pastors, in the presence of men, then why does he bother giving women instruction on how to do so.
The real question is this:
How does the SBC justify female missionaries who take on the role of pastor as they reach lost people groups? After all, a missionary does fulfill that role (Senior Pastor) in various aspects as they establish churches and reach the lost.
Or does the SBC require female missionaries to refer to themselves as “Directors” instead of “Pastors” like they do here in the states even though the job description is exactly the same?
O-O-O-o-o-o Joe—
That was really a tough balsa wood caveman club blow!!!!!!
You and your buddies have a little problem though—–the SBC is still fighting and debating ,i >ad nauseum / The CBF participants are actually enjoying their meetings and getting along taking “Cooperative” seriously!!!!!
Enjoy your continued stress and fight—-I have better things to do, myself!!! I find no problem when someone / somewhere / is happy–unlike our Puritanical spiritual ancestors whom you ressurrect!!!!
The Bible teaches that women should not be Pastors/Elders. They should not be ordained to be such. The Bible teaches that women should not teach men theology, nor put themselves in that kind of authority over the man.
So, Gene, it looks like your problem is with the Bible, which means that your problem is with God.
Gene, if you and others dont like the way God has set up this universe, then why dont you go and create your own universe; where things will be exactly like you want them to be. You can be your own god. Oh, wait a minute, that’s impossible. So, I guess you’ll either have to submit to the God of Creation, or else be in rebellion against Him and face the fires of Hell.
Which do you choose, Gene?
DAvid
volfan—
Paul–in his letter–says such.
Jesus–in the 4 witnesses of the Gospels–SAYS NOTHING!
Which do you choose: Jesus or Paul?????? And why??????
Paul = unmarried / thorn in flesh which might have been an STD / presumed the return of Christ would take place in his time / former zealot killing followers of Christ / question: Does a zealot ever quit “overstating his case to the extreme????”
Paul spoke with equal authority as Jesus because everything Paul write in his epistles were inspired by God. Therefore, it was not Paul speaking but God speaking.
All real Christians recognize that. Of course, since you believe faith in Islam can get a person to heaven and Mormon faith can get a person to heaven, that pretty well tells us whether you’re a Christian or not.
Joe, the blow—
Do you really believe Paul is the equal of Jesus in the Bible?????
Now, you’re getting into blasphemy land and should be careful—very careful.
I know for a FACT that what Paul wrote was inspired by God. Therefore, what Paul wrote was God speaking not Paul. I most certainly do believe that Jesus and God are the same and therefore the words that God inspired Paul to write have EXACTLY AS MUCH AUTHORITY as what Jesus said.
Again, all real Christians recognize this
Oh, I’d save my concern about someone blaspheming for yourself since you claim that salvation is not exclusively found in faith in Christ and repentance of sins.
Joe—
That’s about the most convoluted Christology I have ever heard!!!!! Are you sure you’re not smoking pot as well as taking mean- and smart-mouth pills today?
Jesus and Paul can’t both be “The Christ.”
The belief that Jesus is The Christ is the basis of claiming the name, Christian.
It’s not Paultian, but Christian!!!!
Think about it my straying brother!!!!!
Gene,
Once again, you show us why the CR was not only necessary, but it was critical. To say that part of the Bible is God’s Word, and the other part is not, is heretical. It’s not just liberal. It’s heretical.
The Lord Jesus is the One, Who laid on the heart of Paul what to write. There is no contradiction between the two. There is no “What Jesus thinks, and what Paul thinks.”
To say that there is a division, is extreme error.
David
volfan/David—
The Bible is a witness to both Jesus and Paul along with many others.
Do you choose Christ today—or what??????
I agree. Equal weight must be given to what Paul writes, but only in 1 Timothy, right David?
” The Bible teaches that women should not teach men theology, nor put themselves in that kind of authority over the man. ”
It seems strange there was no law in the Old Covenant about women teaching men. But I guess the New Covenant is more legalistic than the Old for women. Strange, that.
But I guess you view yourself as a Levite Priest in the NC?
Matt,
What you said in #185 above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But, I guess that’s what people do when they cant make a Biblical, nor a logical arguement.
David
Also, Robert, to add to what Joe told you…prophesy is not preaching and teaching the Bible. Prophecy was very different than preaching and teaching. In fact, they are mentioned as 2 different gifts of the Spirit in the Bible.
So, a woman could prophesy away…telling a local church that God had told her that persecution was coming…to get ready. And, she would not be violating Scripture one bit. And, women can pray in the worship service…and sing….and share their testimonies, and a host of other things.
But, it’s very, very clear in the Bible that women should not be Elders/Pastors, nor should they teach doctrine as the authority over men.
DAvid
Actually, the prophesying addressed in 1 Corinthians 11 is preaching. You discover that when you look at the context and do a simple word study.
It is very, very clear in the Bible that women should not be Elders/Pastors, nor should they teach doctrine as the authority over men to all those that choose to have a literal interpretation of the Timothy passages and disregard other areas of scripture, like the one I mention above. And there are many more scriptures that cause me to question a literal interpretation of Timothy. I have yet to come to a final conclusion on the issue. I believe that God is still working that out with me through the whole text.
Here is another question. How does someone choose which scripture to interpret literally and which not to? Why don’t you chop off your hands when you sin, or stone the blasphemer?
See question in bold lettering (168)–we are dealing with the same issue here of biblical inconsistency.
Robert,
Prophesying is not preaching. I’ve done the word studies. You are wrong.
David
Robert,
I dont stone blasphemers, because I’m not an OT Jew. I’m a NT Christian. I also eat pork, because I’m a NT Christian, and not an OT Jew.
David
David,
I understand. You don’t believe the whole Bible, just the New Testament.
David,
I know in this instance I am right. You telling me otherwise doesn’t change that fact. Do you have an answer for my last question about literal interpretation of scripture?
I did answer you, but you dont like my answers..so, you choose to just not read them.
I do believe the whole Bible. But, I’m not an OT Jew. I’m a NT Christian. I live by the NT, not be OT law given to the nation of Israel.
So, the points you try to make, make no sense.
David
“Also, Robert, to add to what Joe told you…prophesy is not preaching and teaching the Bible. Prophecy was very different than preaching and teaching”
The Puritans would disagree with you about prophesy/preaching.
CB,
You know I do disagree with you about 99% of the time, but I have decided that I would truly, some day, love to meet you. You are an interesting fellow and I am sure much more than reading these blogs could ever show. I too question Gene’s integrity, sense, and tact. I just like it better when you do it.
Robert,
If we ever get together, lunch is on me. And if we ever get together and Gene is with us, his education is on me also. Then you and I can eat lunch afterward.
Sorry to be a little offensive, but you guys are getting on my nerves with the pretended “righteousness and PC actions” but without love you are nothing—I Corinthians !3!!!!!!!!
We’re on Gene’s nerves? Oh my, whatever shall we do. Tell ya what, why don’t you just put up another off color lewd remark and make yourself feel better.
I’d save my prayers for myself if I were you. You believe that salvation is possible through Islam and that Mormons are going to heaven as well.
In contrast, Christians recognize that salvation is exlusively found through faith in Christ and repentance of sins.
Fox and Gene, if you’ll do your research real good, I believe yall will find out that Pressler and Patterson were also in cahoots with Oswald. I’m not sure about this, but from what I hear, Oswald used one of Patterson’s rifles to do the shooting.
Fox, would you look up a few links and give them to us?
David
Joe’s a trip.
Try to enjoy him when you can,
and the rest of the time, forgive him.
Robert,
Equal wieght to all the NT….not just to 1 Timothy. But, that also does not make 1 Timothy null and void. 1 Timothy is still true.
David
Yes I agree. That is my problem with shoring this up. I agree that 1 Timothy is pretty clear, although I do think not enough weight is given to the context in which it was written. My problem comes with what I read in the rest of scripture that seems to contradict that passage. I know in my heart that God NEVER contradicts himself in scripture. So then I ask myself, “maybe I’m reading it wrong?”
So, I have one scripture in 1 Timothy that says one thing. But I have passages in 1 Corinthians and Judges – examples of women preaching in the early church, a female deacon (described as such in scripture) bringing the letter to the Romans, etc etc etc.
As I try to reconcile all this my scale seems to be tipping. If not for the 1 Timothy passage, it would be easy for me.
Robert,
I think 1 Timothy cannot be used in cultural context simply because Paul uses the creative order as his reference point for why men should lead, not anything to do with the church.
If you want to email me, I have written a bit about the women in leadership in Judges and Acts and I can email you my opinion, maybe it will help!
Bsmith016@gmail.com
Brandon,
Thanks for the offer. I am not however concerned with the cultural context as I am with the situation of the church to whom he is writing. People seem to forget that he was addressing a specific church not everyone. I think it’s dangerous when we take words that were meant for a specific situation and use them to make blanket statements.
I also don’t have any trouble understanding women in leadership in Judges and Acts. I just have a problem discounting them for the sake of 1 Tim.
Robert,
We’re still about the same thing here. If it was to that specific church, would Paul use the creative order? Was the creative order only applicable to that church? I think it very obviously a blanket statement when Paul goes back to how God created things to work.
I have a problem with folks who will not do the basic reading before they start pontificating.
I am not blameless when it comes to my own petard, but as My Momma’s favorite verse goes: “I would not have you ignorant, brethren…..”
Here, scroll down to page four and then go to page 14
Everybody from Amy Butler to Dot Patterson gets a shot here; and Ms. Shaw starts with her Mom’s SS Class at Jerry Vines Old West Rome Baptist:
http://www.baptiststoday.org/backissues/2009_02.pdf
Brandon,
I realize that it is easy for you and others to make that jump. For me, it’s a stretch.
He was not addressing the comment just at that church. He doesn’t say “Only here in this church do I forbid women from teaching and exercising authority over men”. It is a once, for all, forever prohibition not bound by time, place, culture or anything else.
Yet we justify abandoning many other scriptures due to cultural implications all the time.
Who gets to draw the line?
Some bible passages are culturally bound. Some are not, bill. Sorry someone never bothered to spell that out for you.
Joe,
If my mentor, pastor, father, someone whose advise I trusted wrote me a personal letter, It would not have to read “Dear Robert and only Robert” It would be understood. If I had a problem and had asked for advice it would be addressed in the letter. Now if my friend picked up that letter and did not have the same issues as I did, the advice or direction would not apply.
And the letter also doesn’t say, Everyone that reads this should disregard everything I say from this point forward and take this direction given to Timothy and the church he is at literally.
Robert,
You say you’re not sure about women’s roles in ministry. I call poppycock. You’re an egal who won’t admit they’re an egal. Which is fine, there are going to be egals in heaven and all. But your mind is most certainly not undecided on this issue.
Secondly, if you’re going to asset that Paul intended for that letter to apply only to those he write it to, the onus is on you to prove it.
Joe,
I have done quite a bit to prove it already. That has been my whole point. Why would Paul contradict himself in other passages by direct women how to preach properly? I have a hard time taking the 1Tim. passage as literal when there is some much else written on the topic that is contradictory.
Maybe you are right. Maybe I have made up my mind. I don’t know. What I am looking for is the one thing that allows you and others to ignore the whole of scripture and rest on a literal translation of one passage for your beliefs. If I can find that one thing then I will believe as you.
Hey Joe,
I’m asking who gets to make the call on whether or not a scripture or passage is culturally bound. Who (either a person or group) gets to make the call?
But hey, since you want to be a jerk about it…
Oh wait, you’re Joe Blackmon who justifies insulting and mistreating anyone who doesn’t line up with your thinking, no matter how ignorant it is at times…
Heck, you’re probably so backwards that you still wish the slavery verses were still applicable today as well.
Oh wait, I’m sorry. I apologize.
Isn’t this how it works for you and your comments?
If I can find that one thing then I will believe as you.
Robert,
Perhaps you misunderstood, I don’t CARE if you believe as I do. I’m not the least bit interested in changing your mind. I just want to make sure that people that believe like you do don’t have any influence nor are they given positions of leadership in the church I attend. If I were in the SBC, I’d want to make sure that people who believe as you do were allowed to donate money and not allowed representation on boards/committees and given practically no voice in decision making.
And in both cases, that is the way things are. Toodles.
Joe,
And that has been my point from the beginning. You don’t care. You found your one verse, you translate it literally. Many other passages that address the same issue. You don’t care. Context and word meaning could be different. You don’t care. Old Testament precident on how God calls women. You don’t care. My Bible study doesn’t end when I find a result I like or agree with. Bible study is the foundation of a continuing relationship with Jesus Christ. I pray that I will never reach the point where I reach an attitude of I don’t care towards the Bible.
Robert, maybe you missed it but I said I don’t CARE if you believe as I do. not “I don’t CARE what the Bible says”.
I may email you too, Brandon.
Would like to know how old you are, where you went to church and where you studied and what you read to give you such hubris at what looks to be such an early age.
Paul is not contradicting himself in other passages, and it’s erroneous thinking and bad exegesis to try to make the claim that women were teaching over men…as the authority..in the early church…all because the Bible says that they were prophesying. That’s not what prophesy means.
One thing we know for sure…the Bible very plainly, clearly states that only men can be Elders/Pastors, who preach and teach the church. And, only men are supposed to teach over other men…in an authoritative position over men. That’s very clear from 1 Timothy, especially with the illustration that Paul uses after he makes the statement of women not teaching men. The illustration is of Adam and Eve. How could you get more universal in it’s application than that?
David
“We’re still about the same thing here. If it was to that specific church, would Paul use the creative order? Was the creative order only applicable to that church? ”
No, Paul was using creation order to explain that the ONE woman in Ephesus was deceived. Like Eve. Not like ALL women for all time.
Are you suggesting that Paul was saying women must bear children to be saved? That is quite a leap from the whole pericope of scripture. Only a work for women. However, Paul was referring to her being saved by “Childbearing” as in Messiah. We simply have to take the Ephesus culture into account here as there was a pagan temple in Ephesus..biggest one in the world at the time…that focused on fertility goddesses.
Unless of course, you want to insist that there is a work of salvation for women in childbearing. Seems cruel to barren women to teach such nonsense, though.
” I know in my heart that God NEVER contradicts himself in scripture. So then I ask myself, “maybe I’m reading it wrong?”
Such as, it was ok for Pentecost but not one more day?
Matt,
Women being saved in child bearing has nothing to do with saving grace. It simply means that even though women bear the reputation of being the first to lead the human race into sin, they will be rescued from this stigma by being the ones, whom God has given the privilege of bearing children, and raising those children to know him. Women are the ones, who do the most teaching to thier children. They have a great responsiblity and privilege in this.
Thus, your point is not valid, here. This teaching is not for just one woman, and how she was acting, even though it might have led to this discussion from Paul to this church. Paul made it a universal application by using this illustration; along with the other verses in the NT that talk about older women teaching the YOUNGER WOMEN, and children.
David
Also, on Pentecost, where did women preach and teach Scripture to men; as the authority?
David
Notice how closely Paul is following the text of Genesis 3:
1 Tim. 2:14 “It was the woman who was deceived”
Gen. 3:13 “The serpent deceived me”
Another view:
1 Tim. 2:15 “She will be saved through the childbirth”
Gen. 3:15 “I will put enmity between your seed and her seed.”
It would be Eve’s seed (the childbirth = Jesus) that would save men, by crushing the head of the deceiving serpent.
Mary descended from Eve, as do all ‘souls with bodies’.
There is an icon that shows a pregnant Mary comforting a weeping Eve. The imagery is very appropriate, and beautiful.
Back to the orig title of this post. What are women supposed to do in the SBC and specificaly those called to full time ministry. If we look to the seminaries as models, and I look to swbts as it is in my backyard, all I see is hurdles.
Paige really does not want women in the mdiv so he started homemaking, they are trying as best they can to get potential youth pastors out of the em school into the mdiv. Paige shut down the counselling degree that many many women went into and folded it into the theology school ( why the trustees allowed this to happen with swbts declining enrollment is the subject of another post)
with the seminary as a model, I am afraid our women will be headed to the Methodist church to fulfil God’s call for their lives
What are women supposed to do in the SBC and specificaly those called to full time ministry
Join the CBF or become a Methodist/Episcopalian.
Well, that’s one option anyway.
Learn to cook, clean, make babies, and blindly follow which ever man decides to marry them.
After all, for women in seminary, it’s a ring in the spring or your money back.
I think women pastorettes going ahead and doing the honorable thing and joining the CBF or becoming a Methodist/Epsicopalian would be a much better option. They’d be much happier and so would the SBC. It’s called a win/win.
Since God called them, I think they should do or go wherever He leads.
With all due respect, I said nothing about pastoral ministry. I was thinking along the lines of youth, education, marriage and family counselors, college and seminary professors etc
I recogize reality regarding female pastors in the SBC today and would advise a young lady who is called to preach to seek another denomination
Robert
Well since, God woudln’t call them to do something contrary to His word, as is perfectly clear in 1 Timothy (universal, timeless, cultureless ban on women teaching or having authroity over men), their perception is off–He’s not the one calling them. So, again, the CBF is always hiring and it doesn’t matter what you believe there.
“Also, on Pentecost, where did women preach and teach Scripture to men; as the authority? ”
I understand you do not agree with the Puritans on the definition of prophesy. And I suppose what they did on Pentecost was not teaching anyone anything at all and the men could not hear the women so as to not be poisoned. And of course, all the authority was in the men speaking. Because only men can have authority over women and other men. It is important to our ego’s to believe this and yet accuse people of not believing God if they disagree with you.
Never mind that Jesus Christ is the authority in the Body. The rest of us are just different stages of saved sinners who are most certainly depraved and only grace could save. But I suppose you think us men get a dose of authority with that depravity. Does a man have to be saved to get the authority? Or does it come from the parts we are born with?
Matt,
The word “prophecy” in the Greek language, in the Biblical context, means what it means. And, it did not mean preaching and teaching. It meant “telling direct revelation from God.” You can see it illustrated all thru the OT. God would tell the Prophet something to tell the children of Israel. And, in the NT church, it was God giving direct revelation about something concerning the local church. But, when the Bible was completed, and the Apostles were dead; this gift ceased to be. There was no more need for it. We have the Word of God.
Also, it’s not about ego’s, at all; it’s about obeying the Scripture.
And, Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body. And, our Head has told us about the different roles that HE wants us to have in the family and in the church. The question is, are you and I gonna obey our Head?
David
Matt,
Also, God ordained it to be this way. It has nothing to do with who has what parts of the body. This is the way God wants it to be.
That’s enough for me.
David
Volfie old buddy
I believe you are on an interpretive island with not much company. Most commentators I have read on the word prophesy in these instances are forthtelling (preaching) not foretelling ( prophesy and perphaps golf)
but then you are the Greek scholar here
Volfan,
Prophesy- to speak as a mediator between god and humankind or in God’s stead.
I found this word definition after looking in the synonym section for preaching on dictionary.com. I now see the problem with your confused understanding. Preachers that I have listended to always bring the message that God has given them to share to His people. I don’t imagine that has ever been the case when you have stepped in the pulpit.
Jim,
SBTS offers a Master’s for women called to full-time ministry. The reason why there are really no M.Div’s for women is because that degree is typically geared for senior/lead/preaching pastors which isn’t in collaboration with the SBC’s theology on ministry. Patterson is pretty hardcore about women in ministry, from everything I’ve studied on him so maybe he doesn’t feel comfortable giving a woman an opportunity to be a senior pastor through even an M.A. at SWBTS. Just my opinion.
Paul Pressler was there on site for the Martin Shackleford Massacre 20 years ago yesterday.
I know, I was there; saw it with my own eyes:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5353/9/
See comment and link at #188
Free Shirley Sherrod:
Give her job back to her.
If the NAACP, Glenn Beck, the Tea Parties the SBC, Fox News or the USDA; I don’t care who was at fault, but she deserves a National Apolgoy and her Job Back
Fox,
HALLELUJAH! You commented with a personal opinion. Dave Miller, your coronary may have finally arrived.
I would tell you to read 1 Timothy 4:12 and our conversation would be over before you even had a chance to link me to 20 people you think I’m too dumb to study.
I’m having chest pains and my left hand hurts. Should I see a doctor?
Thank-you; Did you also read the ABP news piece about the 20th Anniversary of the Shackleford/Martin Massacre.
I was there; I witnessed Pressler contrived Travesty
Dr. Russell Dilday, and Dr. Molly Marshall Green, and Joel Osteen all tried to lead the SBC astray when they met for a delightful dinner at the Whistling Pig in Fulton, KY.
Read this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27833050/
David
PS. I just thought I’d give Fox a taste of his own medicine.
Just an FYI – comments should make sense to at lest 10% of blog readers. Otherwise you are a troll and just piss me off.
Kind of like a logic-tithe?
I like that: a “logic-tithe.” Can I use it Sunday if I promise to raise both hands at a 45 degree angle, with the first two fingers extended, and then dip them*?
John
*Making opening and closing quotation marks.
I’ll need money.
Send me a bill, OK?
John
Jim,
I never claimed to be a Greek scholar. But, I do know where to look. I’ve had enough Greek to find the words, and look at their meanings.
And, I’m not on an island by myself, at all….not by a longshot. In fact, this island that I’m on is very, very crowded.
David
Volfie
it’s just that you run around the blogs making all these declarative statements. I just assumed you preached from the greek- my bad. I won’t make THAT mistake again
Jim,
I do use Greek when preparing my sermons. Yes. I do.
David
It’s you exevolfie that scares me…
This has always been one of my primary concerns with the treatment of women in the new sbc, the pick and chose over which passages are a. More innerrant and b. How the same word when used in conjunction with men is used one way and with women a different way. Phoebe servant/deacon, Phillips daughters etc and several others that get brougt up but dismissed out of hand because they don’t fit preconsieved notions
Jim,
Phoebe being a servant/deacon is a different argument than preaching/teaching elder.
Jim,
It’s your lack of understanding that stands in the way of you seeing the truth of Phoebe, and Phillips daughters, etc. You want to go along with the women’s lib mindset of the day, so you see the Bible through those lens. But, if we just let the Bible speak from what it clearly says…well, then we must see that sometimes the Bible goes against the culture of the day, and it’s hard to believe and preach and teach…because the world will laugh at us, or ridicule us, or even ostracize us for it. But, the truth is still the truth.
Thus, when I approach the Bible, I let it tell me what to believe. I let it tell me what to do. I go into the Bible with an open mind and an open heart. And, I surrender my heart to what it teaches. The world can do what it wants.
David
Robert,
There’s a big difference in someone…a woman, let’s say…getting up at a church meeting…back before the Apostles died…and saying, “God has told me that persecution is coming within a month;” and with a man teaching the Bible as a leader in a group of people…whether that be a home Bible study group, a Sunday School class, or the entire church.
Men should be the leaders. Men should be the ones, who take on this position in the home, and in the church.
I feel sorry for the Mr. Milquetoast men of our world, who are following the leadership of their wife.
David
Volfan,
Question- If teaching the Bible is the issue between the meaning of preaching and prophesy then there is even a bigger problem with the 1st Timothy passage. I am pretty sure the New Testament was not published when Paul gave his direction that you misinterpret. So how was preaching supposed to have your “teach the Bible” meaning when there was no Bible at that time? Hmmm. And don’t say it meant the OT because you have already made it clear it doesn’t matter.
Robert,
Teaching the Scriptures…teaching the writings of the Apostles…which is the NT of today…and teaching the OT Scriptures…and where did I say that the OT didnt matter????
Being the teacher of a group, where men are present, is not God’s way. Women can teach other women all day long. Women can teach children all day long. Women can witness…share the Gospel with lost men, women, and children…all day long. Women can sit at the dinner table and discuss the Bible with men while sipping on sweet tea all day long. And, it would not violate Scripture. Prophecy…back when this gift was still active… was not setting up the woman as the Teacher of the Bible and doctrine over men. God just gave her a message to tell the church. That’s all.
But, if a woman is teaching doctrine to men…as the authority in the place…over men…then, this is most certainly not the way God wants it to be. It goes against His order of things.
David
Volfan,
You forgot the, “In my opinion”.
And now from the Beating a Dead Horse Dept….
It is only your opinion. And mine is different because of the multitude of Scriptual examples that have been given, that I choose not to ignore.
Robert,
Your argument is not with David, but with Scripture. I respect your interpretation, but the onus is on you to provide why Paul would use the order of creation as his reference to why women can’t teach.
Priscilla, the most highly regarded woman minister in the NT, part of Paul’s missionary team, was a member of the church at Ephesus. If any church were allowed a woman teacher, surely it would’ve been there. But Paul tells Timothy and the church that it’s an issue of universal creation, not specifics.
So my church doesn’t have to follow the order of creation, only that church? Doesn’t make much sense.
Paul mentions particular problems when they are there. Like false teaching, the 1 Cor. 5 church discipline issue, etc. But here he uses flat out, unversal language.
Brandon,
My argument is not with scripture. It is very clear to me. You read it and it’s clear to you. We both have texts we go to to prove our points and we are confident they are correct.
I really have no problem agreeing with your assesment of 1 Tim.. The problem I have is with the numerous other Biblical examples of women in positions of authority. Prophets, preachers, deaconesses, leaders of the people of Israel- they are all in there. When I weigh evidence, and I have one verse that says one thing, and multiple passages that say another, I lean towards the one with the most evidence. To say that a literal translation of 1 Timothy is incorrect is an easier thing to prove than disproving the rest of the Bible.
So I too could say that your argument is with scripture. Both sides have to come up with reasons why we believe scripture to say what it says. I just have to come up with less excuses than you do.
Robert,
Do you not think that the NT church is different than Israel? Are you a dispy?
Brandon,
Not sure what you mean by dispy? Of course the NT church is different than Israel. But God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
By dispy, he meant dispensational – the hermeneutic used by all people who correctly understand the scriptures and have an IQ over 120.
Right Brandon?
David,
LOL- that means no one had a IQ over 120 until about, oh say, 200 years ago?
Yeah everyone, Dispys are so elite they have only been around for a few hundred years! They found something in the Bible no one in 1800 years could find! It’s TRULY astonishing!
Guess what I found in the Bible today? Paul had multiple personalities, Peter was a cry baby, and Jesus really has THREE more Comings, not just TWO like Dispys believe…. How have people missed these things for SOOO long???? They are sooooo obviously in the Bible! Just ask DTS!
Well, not since the Apostles anyway.
David Miller,
I’m not sure that the system responsible for Left Behind can be argued as intellectual. Just sayin.
Oh, no he didn’t!!!!
I’m lobbying to get the Left Behind Series added to the Canon.
Not to take a negative turn to a light-hearted exchange, but it is kinda simplistic to deny a system of interpretation just because of some novels.
There are some very intellectual dispensationalists. You should deal with them.
Sorry to get defensive here. But I get really tired of the dispensationalists-are-idiots-because-of-the-sensationalists argument.
I’ve had to smack Matt around a couple of times for using it!!!
Just playing David.
How can a guy named Darby not understand the nuances of dispensationalism? In fact, progressive dispensationalism is moving remarkably closer to my beloved NCT.
Yeah, I’ve been reading about NCT some myself.
I apologize. For some reason, Svoboda makes me grumpy!!
Dave,
How dare you say I make you grumpy- I let you beat me in golf!
Also, I don’t deny Dispensationalism because of some novels. I deny it because it is in and of itself fiction!
But, you are right, when people deal with Dispensationalism they need to deal with Ryrie, Walvoord, and other great intellectuals who happened to have a blind spot!
See, Darby?
Matt,
Easy, easy… if it weren’t for DTS dispys out here, I wouldn’t be the covenant theologian I am today!
Volfie
Mega Mega dittos to what Robert said
Consider the fact that Sandy Creek Church had eldresses, that Morgan Edwards reported this fact in 1771, and about three or four years later wrote a tract indicating he had come to accept the fact that there could be eldresses. In seeking to reconstruct the case for eldresses, I came across a Puritan, Matthew Poole, who in his exposition of the Bible, stated concerning, I Tim 2 that “I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man,” “That is is true except she specially called, gifted, and endowed such as” andhe name allthe prophetesses of the Old and NT. You might also consult my address, “The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses” which I delivered as chairman of the Historical Committee of the BSCNC. The address was recorded on video cassette by the Communications Dept of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina in the first of the collection on the visual history established by the Committee. It is in one of the two cassettes on “The Jersey Church Celebration.” There is a biblical case that can be made for equaliy without in any sense violating the spirit, tenor, and even verbal exactitude of the written word of God. Just consider how children are equals in a faily. My half-sister Debbie (long gone into eternity) who suffered from a birth injury, physical and mental handicap, once said toour mother, “You must love Jim, Joy, and Sarah more than me, because there so much smarter than me.” Mom replied: “I don’t know, but what I don’t love you more, because you try so darned hard.” Just think of how hard it was to learn tie your shoes as a child, and Debbie with a useless hand taught herself to tie her shoes amidst howls and screams of rage. And yet she kept at it with a dogged persistence until she succeeded. I can still see her (in my mind’s eye) going forward to make her public profession of faith in Christ… I use to carry her to church, when she was small.
Dr.,
I don’t think that Sandy Creek should be a reason why women should be elders, nor do I think we should make exceptions to Scripture as your Puritan friend did.
Brandon,
No exceptions made. They just choose not to ignore the rest of the Bible, which you must do to support your belief.
Robert,
I think you’re a little sure considering you “have yet to come to a conclusion” on the matter.
I have studied extensively on woman leadership in Scripture and I even offered my email to give you my interpretation on it and you declined. I don’t think you can make such a claim about me “ignoring” anything when you have no interest in learning why I believe it.
Brandon,
Ignoring, discounting, explaining away, whatever you want to call it to make you feel better. I appreciate the e-mail offer, but I started studying extensively on it when you were in second grade. I think I have it covered.
Robert,
Wow, you are incredibly arrogant. I doubt your age has anything to do with this. Wasn’t it you that said you weren’t decided? After 16 years of extensive study? Quite the exegetical prowess you have there.
Anyway, I tried to be civil. Don’t be emotional, just be logical enough to hear someone’s opinion before you say it has no credibility.
Have a good one, brother.
Well, Robert knows he is decided. he’s an e-gal, which is fine. I have no idea why it’s so hard to say “I’m an e-gal”.
Joe,
Have to be honest. I don’t know these fancy abbreviations. I can say I am or I am not because I don’t know what it is.
Poppycock. E-gal. Egalitarian. As it “opposite of complimentarian”.
Joe,
Had to look it up, but I guess I am a little. Still think that the man is the leader in the marital relationship. I just can’t say with any certainty, based on scripture, that the office of pastor should exclude women.
Brandon,
Sorry if you took offense. Not meant that way. Just meant that I doubt you have any arguments that I haven’t heard before. I was very much like you when I was beginning Seminary, probably had the same beliefs. Over time I learned how to study the Bible by myself (not a skill that the present day SBC encourages). And I am not implying you don’t study, just that I didn’t much up until I started my masters. And as I did I started to realize the problem with just taking the pastor’s word for it. I don’t have any problem with your belief because I know you have spent hours studying. The problem I have is with the 90% of the convention that take their beliefs from the new leadership without question. Kinda reminds me of the catholic church.
Robert has a good point about the Catholic Church, except I have more in common with Kerry Kennedy and Garry Wills and Oscar Romero and Mario Cuomo than I have in common with Dot Patterson, Al Mohler, Jesse Helms and Richard Land and Rove.
I have read some blasphemous things, but some of the foregoing really take the prize. I am surprised that such transgressions of good taste are tolerated in a blog, supposedly dedicated to the glory of God. The idea of Conservatives being in control like that advocated is a contradiction in terms, especially for a supposd believer in the Sovereignty of God which view I have held and preached for at least 47+ years. When the Being who is Omnipotence speaks and acts and is present it is best to walk softly and speak quietly lest He take notice of such offensive claims that militate against His sovereignty.
As to women and men and equality, the matter of women being called eldresses is biblical, if you folks will bother to take the time to check out the feminine form of presbuteros and its usuage by the Apostle Paul in his Pastoral Epistles. Note, specifically, I Tim5:1 where the KJV uses the term ELDER for the minister in that verse and then renders the feminine form of the term in verse two as elder women or aged as some commentators render it while the NKJV avoids the issue by rendering both 5:1,2 as older, thus evading the issue of whether ministers are meant. Also note the use of gender neutral terms with reference to desiring the office of bishop just like those used with reference to desiring and seeking salvation. To argue that the woman might not desire such office would be tantamount to saying she cannot desire or want salvation, absurd on the very face of it. Also shall we mention the women who labored with Paul in the Gospel (Phils.4:2,3) and Gals.3:28 where it is specifically stated that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, THERE IS NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE, FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS?” That sounds suspiciously like equality and egalitarianism to me. While I appreciate the fact that men normally lead, I also appreciate the fact that there can come changes in relationships where the woman must also lead, note what happens when a husband becomes disabled, unable to perform his functions as provider and leader of the home. Also note the mother and wife taking up the mantle of leadership in the home at the passing of a father and husband. Note even further that when men are empowered with authority, due to their fallen nature, they often turn out to be authoritarian (a very sick form of authority often with the vilest abuses – and I know from having dealt with such issues as a Christian and Professional Counselor as well as a minister) instead of authoritative which is the healthy form of authority. The reason for many of the laws we have about the rights of women sprang from the morass of abuses by domineering males. And I do not say such to excuse or encompass as acceptable radical feminists. I had one of those dear young things call me a male chauvinist pig once. It was a dumbfounding experience. Another one tried that on a friend of mine who was very much a friend to the Moderate side of issues in those days, but she made a terrible mistake as he had been a sargeant in the military (and they are the fellows who put the bluff on the privates to carry out the commands of the officers). He roared at her in his best sargeant’s voice (and believe me he could roar), “Lady, if you ever again call me that, I’ll knock your teeth down your throat.” The lady turned white and began shaking and turned and ran from the building. When I heard this I about died laughing, because my friend was by no means what he seem to be in that moment of a great bluff. He would not have laid a finger on her or hurt her for anything, but she did not know that and I dare say she never again called another preacher a male chauvinist pig. It is easy matter to take up things as we think they are without close examination of all the details involved.
Have any of you considered the fact that a believer in scripture like John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims, could say, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word?” Consider how we argue against slavery today as unchristian and ungodly, when our predecessors and even ancestors argued that it was biblical and even fought the first great modern war in defense of such evil. They could not accept what Bible believing abolitionists in the North (and even some in the South who were forced to leave) were saying about how wrong it is to hold a brother in slavery and how it violated our biblical created rights in the Declaration and Constitution. Another friend said to me once, “Name me one instance in the Bible where a woman is mentioned as a leader, and I will eat it.” I cited Micah 6:4, “I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.” He looked like he had swallowed a most disagreeable portion though he could not answer the verse and would not keep his word on the issue. I also add, I do not care for the use of foul language like the example cited above. I have enough trouble with such language as I was raised with a man whose mind was that of a six year old who raved and cursed for hours on end, day and night. None of this is simple and easy, but God has left us a challenge to triumph in and over such circumstances for His glory, a never-ending struggle that lasts for a lifetime with few successes and many failures. But better things are coming, days and years in which the earth shall enjoy a fullness of His knowledge and glory as the waters cover the seas.
Let me add, that I hav read and heard things from some of our leading conservatives, even male and female, that sounds lik it came right out of Roman Catholicism’s hierarchical view of authority. In fact, I have read works and articles where conservaives use the term hierarchy as if it were the most acceptable of views, and no one calls their hands on it or notes how
Baptists use to oppose such a view with their very lives. The hierarchy folks are the ones that brought us the Inquisition, a subject that I have studied. I even had a friend whose father was subjected to the exquisite torture of an Iron Maiden, one of the inventions of the inquisitors that was used for centuries against supposed heretics. Beg your pardon. In heaven the Hierarchy of Supreme Goodness works, but God calls as his church, the ekklesia which is a congregation in which all members are equals, with equal rights and responsibilities. Any one with authority in that society has it be vote of the congregation who can also take it away.
Dr. Willingham,
1Tim 5 and Gal 3 are two different contexts as you know. Your capitalizing Gal3:28 to abolish contextual differences establish your view but not the respective views in contexts.
lu,
True dat.
How in the world dd no comments wind up further up the chain, when it was made after many of the comments just preceding this one??? As to someone educating Gene, I would think twice. He works at tree removal, and you have to be tough as nails and a little daffy to work in timber (my grandfather and my dad both worked in that industry fo brief periods). And when you live in the area of Ft. Bragg or one of the other bases, you never know but that you might run into one who had been in the special forces or one of those trained for close quarters combat. Ha! But really, our responsibility is to conduct ourselves as children of the Lord, gentle, meek, amiable, winsome, able to win by losing and especially by dying, if need be…not by overwhelming physical violence. Only the overwhelming wonderfully winsome goodness and love.
An active and intense conversation has taken storm on Domestic Violence and calls for a denouncement of the DAnvers Statement of the SBTS housed Council for Biblical Man and womanhood:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5370/53/
A branch of the Baptist Women for Equality had lined up with Church of God Women and the fur is flying.
Gene,
You know why the above is true? Because, we conservatives love CONTROL! Power! We love it. We crave it. And, buddy boy, we’ve got it! Bwu ha ha ha ha ha ha
Gene, CB is really an operative for the CIA, but dont tell anyone, okay? This is the way that we conservative SB’s control Washington, DC. CB is our inside man!
I’m the inside man for controlling West Tennessee. I have many, many connections.
David
CB is really an operative for the CIA, but dont tell anyone, okay?
I knew it… I just knew it!!! Now I will have to change my name and move (again)…
I have always suspected that.
See the featured story at ABPnews linked above
Comments on this entry are closed.