This post is by Kevin Howard:
Southern Baptists owe much to Lottie Moon. As a missionary, I probably owe her more. She did much for what is now the IMB. Her work was risky, exhausting, and commendable, to say the least. (Listen to Danny Akin’s sermon, The Power of a Consecrated Life Lived Out in the Ministry of Lottie Moon.)
While I’m no expert on her life, I’ve read a bit about her from various sources. I’m currently reading Catherine B. Allen’s, The New Lottie Moon Story, 1980. Allen is undoubtedly an admirer of the great Moon and seems to give a fair portrayal of her subject’s life. (Allen, however, seems to regret the fact of Moon’s discomfort with the issue of women preaching to men.)
- We commend Lottie Moon’s positive work among women and children.
- She would sometimes teach for hours a day, speaking six to eleven times. No easy task in English let alone in a second language.
- We commend Lottie Moon’s courage and endurance.
- She wrote of her experience, “…sleeping on brick beds in rooms with dirt floors and walls blackened by the smoke of many generations, the yard also being the stable yard and the stable itself being within three feet of your door…” (p. 131). She also endured being called “devil” on a regular basis in her earlier years on the field.
- We commend Lottie Moon’s zeal and influence with raising money to support missionaries and for the inauguration of what is now called stateside assignments in the IMB.
- With only one small break to accompany her sick sister back to the States, she went from 1873 to 1891 before she got her first furlough.
One thing I’ve learned since picking up Allen’s book is how formally educated Moon was. Along with her well-rounded education, she knew several languages before going overseas, including biblical Greek and Hebrew.
While Miss Moon was an admirable woman she had clay feet. We commend her for her virtues, but where she taught men (pp. 109, 140, 172-173, 176, 180, 183-184), we do not commend her.
Up to the point I’ve reached in Allen’s book, page 184, Moon wasn’t comfortable in the role of teaching men and she avoided it as much as possible (pp. 179-180). She not only understood where most of her fellow SBCers came down on the issue, she understood what Scripture said, or at least how the early church interpreted Scripture on this matter. Here’s how she responded to men wanting her to teach them, even after she’d taught or preached to some men already: “It was not the custom of the ancient church that women preach to men” (p. 179).
A truth often lost on modern egalitarians in the SBC is that Scripture is our standard not any one female’s example (See some comments here exalting Moon for teaching men). That there have been women who could preach better than men is a given. That many female missionaries have taught and preached to men and that many men have come to Christ under the preaching of women is understood. But the issue is, what does the Bible teach? Through what means is God most glorified?
If you’re a man and disturbed by the thought of pagan men not hearing the gospel because there aren’t enough Christian men around them to preach Christ, why don’t you join the missionary force? Why do you want women to do your job?
I’m sure Lottie Moon’s rewards are great and mine will pale in comparison. Who am I to critique her life? She endured far more than I’ll probably ever face. But the clarity of Scripture takes precedence over unnecessary admiration. We have a sure footing on this issue: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Tim 2:11-12). That’s where we stand and where we find our standard.
{ 112 comments }
Kevin,
Nice post. I am one who agrees that women should NOT be Pastors. I am one who thinks it is ok for women to teach classes that men may attend but I would not put a women in a Mens class!
Your info on Lottie Moon is spot on! And better yet, your Biblical standard vs. a female example portion of the post is GREAT!
Yes!!! The Bible is the standard!
This is where most Southern Baptist will probably be flummoxed about a piece such as you have written because you make it sound as if it would be better for pagan men to NOT hear the Gospel as to hear it from the lips of a woman.
Do you really believe that the Gospel should be witheld from the lost on such a basis?
William,
You may very well win the award for gross misrepresentation of Kevin’s article.
Of course, you could instead be a contender for gross misunderstanding of Kevin’s article.
Perhaps you should read it again.
It’s not at all hard to understand what the Bible teaches on this subject. It’s just hard for some to accept. Makes me think of Mark Twain’s famous comment: “Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.”
Great quote, Barry!
I haven’t misrepresented what Kevin said. Maybe he doesn’t mean what he says or didn’t say what he meant to say.
He could answer this question and clear that up: Does he believe that the Gospel should be witheld from pagan men if no man is around to preach/teach them but only a woman?
If the answer is “no”, then perhaps he could explain how and when what he sais is the Biblical standard may be violated.
How about directly quoting Kevin so we can all see how you reached your conclusion about what you think he stated/implied?
With all due respect, I think you may be confusing evangelism and discipleship. Christ has called every man, woman, and child to share the Gospel with a lost and dying world – no matter their gender, color, socio-economic background, etc.
Yet, the issue of discipleship is a different one altogether. It seems quite clear that women have been called to exercise authority over other women (Titus 2:4-5), but that God has reserved the teaching of men for other men (1 Tim. 2:11-12). Notice I said teaching, not the sharing of the Gospel. One is discipleship within the context of the local church – the other is evangelism.
I think we make this issue much more complicated than it really is because we don’t like the plain teaching of Scripture in these texts. Unfortunately, we have become products of our feminist, egalitarian age. Our homes and our churches are suffering tremendously as a result.
Kevin: “We commend her for her virtues, but where she taught men (pp. 109, 140, 172-173, 176, 180, 183-184), we do not commend her.”
“That many female missionaries have taught and preached to men and that many men have come to Christ under the preaching of women is understood. But the issue is, what does the Bible teach? Through what means is God most glorified?”
OK, maybe he could just answer his own questions if not mine. I merely ask honest questions derived from his writing. He does not commend dear old Lottie for preaching/teaching men? Well then, does Kevin believe it was unbiblical, disobedient or what for her to do so? Would witholding the Gospel from pagan men because she was a woman have given greater glory to God than her preaching/teaching to them?
You cannot take his position without dealing with the scenario LM faced in her day and other women face in our day. I’m merely asking for him to leave his classroom or study and answer a real world question.
I would, Stan, welcome your showing how I have so badly comprehended or misrepresented Kevin’s piece.
Kevin:
I agree with you. Who are you to critique Lottie Moon’s life? I think until you make the sacrifices she did I would not worry about whether she preached to men or not. Thankfully she did.
Tom,
Is it not wise to examine the lives of those who have gone before us? Both the stuff we agree and disagree with?
I think being a Christian gives Kevin and every other christian the right to examine the life of Lottie… And as Kevin has done here he has both pointed out where he thought she was in error and praised her for the good that she did.
Read John 20:1-18. It’s in the Bible, too. Mary was “announcing” (NASB) the good news of the resurrection to the disciples. Guess she should have kept her mouth shut and waited for a MAN to do it, shouldn’t she, dear legalists? And the lengthy public proclamation of God’s goodness by Deborah in Judges 5 as she led–yes, led, spiritually and politically–the nation of Israel? Big mistake. Better question the inerrancy of that chapter, shouldn’t you. What, all four of Philip the evangelist’s DAUGHTERS were “prophetesses” (Acts 21:9)? Guess they must have quietly, submissively dictated their proclamations to MEN and let them do the talking….what, that’s not what the Bible says? Give me a break. The Bible clearly rules Lottie Moon out of bounds. What a sinner. Just wouldn’t have made a very good legalist, would she? OK, I’m done now. Go back to straining out the gnats and swallowing the camels.
Mary announcing the good news of the resurrection is not preaching and teaching. It’s just announcing something. When my momma used to holler out the back door for me to come in and eat lunch, that wasnt preaching and teaching, either. So, it was perfectly fine for Mary to announce such a great moment. Whoever said that it wasnt okay? Strawman and very weak understanding of things in this comment.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with women sharing the Gospel; or in OT times for them to prophesy….tell the nation what God told them to tell the nation; nothing wrong with Deborah being a Judge over Israel, due to the fact that there was no man man-enough to do it at that time…it was a reluctant thing…besides we’re talking about OT Israel here, and not the NT Church….and besides again, we’re talking about her being a Judge, not a Rabbi, not a Priest. So, once again, very bad understanding of the Bible being displayed.
Lottie Moon could share the Gospel with every man on this planet, and that still wouldn’t have been teaching over men in a group type setting….like in a CHURCH. And, when she did teach men, she did it reluctantly….reluctantly….due to no men being around who could do it. I believe she looked upon her ministry as being to the women and children in China.
A lack of understanding the Bible can lead people to all kinds of confusing ideas, and can cause them to not see the truth of the Scripture.
David
David,
I bet with Rev. John it has less to do with a lack of understanding but a willful rejection of clear scriptural truth because it’s easier to make up his own guidlines rather than live by what God has decreed. Hence the reason the phrase “Jesus Christ is the standard for interpreting scripture” had to be updated in the BFM 2000 because it allowed mainstreamers/moderates to say “Oh, well, Paul could’t have meant that because Jesus was much too loving to EVER have meant that.”
Poppycock.
Kevin:
Why even debate this issue? The fundamentalists that now own the SBC have decided that women can not be preachers and that is the beginning and sadly the end of the discussion.
Thankfully Lottie Moon lived and died before the CR.
Actually, it was God who decided that. it’s called I Timothy Chapter 2.
Looks like God didn’t get the memo to Adrian Rogers’ son David who if I understand him at the CONSERVATIVE SBCimpact blog says he reads Scripture to allow for Women Deacons.
Looks like a slippery slope.
So NT Wright flies in the face of God when he hold’s differently than Joe Blackmon??
That is just incredibly ridiculous to put it mildly.
Joe, how you comin with the insidehighered piece on Erskine????
Is that the college that fired some trustee’s because they didn’t hold to the doctrine of inerrancy the way all Christians do and should? If so, I’d love to shake the hands of those who made that decisions to stand for true Christian principals.
And no, what Joe Blackmon believes really doesn’t matter–it’s what the Bible says. And since it says something different than what N.T. Wright says, he’s the one with the problems.
BTW, how are you, Don Quixote, and your buddies coming with your Mainstream Resurrgence [(c) 2008 Joe Blackmon]? Y’all ready to use the dust storm of the GCR to try and “take back the convention, by gawd”?
Joe:
DAve and others here have asked us to move on and not get away from things germane to the topic.
We are drifting here. I don’t know what your status is on this board among your funamentalist brethren but maybe you could open a topic about the CR, the GCR and the CR’s Ethical History and what not.
Until then for the time being not much use in engaging a discussion with a fellow who wouldn’t know the BX 6400′s from a Hole in the Ground.
Have a Blessed Day and do google the insidehighered piece on Erskine. World of Inerrancy talk and enlightenment discussion there and what happens when a faith community leaves the reservation for the Promised Land of Karl Rove and Richard Land.
For an incremental starter there, you may want to see Adrian Rogers son David at SBCimpact.net on the Idolatry of Politics.
But remember, that is just the starter. From there world of exploration waiting just for you in the BX 6400′s.
Maybe go straight for Barry Hankins Uneasy in Babylon and look up Gushee and Carey Newman in the Index and their experience with Al Mohler in 94 at SBTS, a hire by Mohler after Honeycutt if that gives you a clue.
Tom,
The leaders in the SBC, as well as the vast majority of the SBC, have agreed that a man should be the pastor of a local church and the leader in the home. That is all. These two views are presented in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.
Baptists have pretty much agreed to disagree on the rest.
One other point. The SBC leaders of the Conservative Resurgence never called themselves fundamentalists and never answered to that name. It is a slur against them. They simply referred to themselves as conservatives.
David R. Brumbelow
Tom,
David brings up a good point. There is in fact a difference between “fundamentalist” and “conservative.” To pretend they are one in the same is naive and unhelpful for productive conversation.
See, the thing is mainstream/moderate christians want to call themselves conservatives so they have to call real Conservative Christians by some other name–fundementalists is the only thing they could come up with I guess.
If you have trouble with Lottie as a preacher, imagine your difficulty with Martha Stearns Marshall, Daniel Marshall, and Shubal Stearns. Add to that your differences with Morgan Edwards who reported the practice of the Sandy Creek Church in 1771 and then 3-4 years later wrote a tract upholding the practice. Then add also the issue of the Puritans who like Matthew Poole thought the practice okay. Poole argued that Paul suffered not a woman to teach or usurp authority over men except she be a specially called, gifted, and endowed person such as the prophetesses of the Old and New Testaments whom he named along with others. Imagine also the problem that you have about salvation which is solely by exception to the Divine law. The Law of the Ten Commandments is that the soul that sinneth shall die, and yet every one of us has broken those commndments more than once. And yet we all act and speak as if the whole problem of their charge against us has been resolved – which it has by the exception of grace. I hold to verbal inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility as much as any fundamentalist, but, legalism, will land one in trouble with the Lord. And many of these people who ride the issue of man is the head of the house, boss of the woman, use that leadership principle as justification for cover for their abysmal cruelty. All doctrines of the Bible are doctrines of balance; there is a balance on this issue. There are exceptions, and woe to those who never admit that possibility for they will find the principle applied to their case of no exceptions concernibng the law. Then what will they do? I fear God. He has the right to say a woman can or cannot. If there were no instances to the contrary, we might all lord it over the females. But there are instances to the contrary, and therefore we imperil ourselves when we read God’s word like a law to which there can be no exceptions. Personally, I prefer the more human practices of my predecessors and, in some cases, ancestors to those who made the rule on women to be like the law of the Medes and Persians. I am no wholesale advocate of women in ministry, I have been called a male chauvinist pig in one instance. At the same time, I do not by any means intend to be bound by the fears and iron rules of people who might well be as cruel as some of the cases I have had to deal with in my life time. And I am Southern Baptist, born and bred, savingly converted from atheism and yet descended from those who were present at the beginning of Baptists in this nation. Any one who studies I Cors. 13 will soon realize that the love principle is to have greater influence in our approach to these matters than the iron-clad rules of those wth deep-seated problems, and I intend to follow that rule.
(Matthew) Poole argued that Paul suffered not a woman to teach or usurp authority over men except she be a specially called, gifted, and endowed person such as the prophetesses of the Old and New Testaments…
Seems like Poole was using a variant reading of which I’m not familiar.
Dr. Willingham:
I think the sad part for some of the guys against Lottie Moon preaching is that they are embarassed by her and the written history about her. She sets a mighty poor example in their opinion. It would have been much better if the name was Lot Moon a man.
One thing you have to keep in mind about Lottie Moon was that she was a missionary in a place where Christianity was brand new. This was a very unusual situation for her to be in. She expressed her concerns and misgivings about teaching men, but there were no men around to teach.
So, this should not be the norm just because Lottie did it in a very unusual situation. It’s be like trying to base your theology on the book of Acts alone…without any of the rest of the NT. Not wise.
The Bible is very clear on this subject. A woman should not be over men…in authority, as the Bible teacher. That’s so clear in Scripture it aint even funny.
David
I am untroubled by criticism of our Baptist icons like Lottie because I get a little weary of the usual hagiography, but I did ask honest questions about where Kevin was willing to go with his views.
Matt:
So you think there is a difference between a conservative and a fundamentalist? What is that difference? I believe in my comment I used fundamentalist and not conservative.
I’m not real sure why you made your comment.
The SBC that I grew up with is gone and will never return. Somebody took it over. Guess who took it over? It starts with a F.
Tom,
It doesn’t start with an F, it starts with a C. Remember? C(thats a C)onservative Resurgence. Its not Fundamentalist Resurgence.
I made the comment because you made a false accusation- you said that it was Fundies that took over the SBC when it wasn’t, it was conservatives. If you think conservative=fundamentalist then you are very sadly mistaken. Its hard to even have a conversation with someone that doesnt think there is a difference between a conservative and a fundamentalist.
Matt is right. David B. is right. There’s a huge difference between a conservative and a fundamentalist. I know Wade tries to make conservatives look like fundamentalists over at his place, and apparently Tom swallows this bait as well.
Is that not the way to sway arguements many times? You make the people you dont like, or dont agree with, look worse than they are in order to persuade others to see them as the Green eyed Monster?
Tom, fundamentalists can be seen in the Sword of the Lord, Bob Jones University, independent Baptist types. Conservatives just believe the Bible and try to live by what it clearly teaches. Fundamentalists are legalistic about everything from length of a fella’s hair to tobacco use to women wearing skirts and dresses. For a good example of fundamentalists, you need to check out Pensacola Christian College, or Bob Jones University.
Someone can be conservative without being a fundamentalists, but you and others calling us fundamentalists makes us look meaner and narrower and extreme…thus, you like that word.
Tom, conservatives won the SBC back with God’s help. Get over it. Go join the CBF, or the American Baptists where you fit. Let us get on with what God wants us to do.
BTW, praise God that the SBC will never go back to the way it was back in the 1960′s thru the 1980′s. May it never go back that way again.
David
A major problem with calling conservatives fundamentalists is that doing so is essentially cheating by employing an anachronism. Those who call the leaders of the CR “fundamentalists” hide behind the early 1900′s definition of Machen–fundamentals of the faith. Yea, use that definition and you open up the door to calling lots of people fundamentalists.
However, the “cheating” aspect is that everyone today uses fundamentalist in a very different sense (beginning with the split of 1900′s “fundamentalism” into the camps of evangelicalism and more stringent “fundamentalism” of today during Billy Graham’s early ministry.) It carries the baggage of “no attending the picture shows” and “if the King James was good enough for the apostle Paul” and of course now the tie-over into “Islamic fundamentalism.” When you label “conservatives” as “fundamentalists”, you’re using old terminology to saddle your opposition with current baggage. So either learn how words are used currently or stop intentionally putting false labels on people.
Tom,
Who took over the SBC? First, that implies someone else had control of it in the first place. Could it have been the moderates?
Beginning in 1979 the majority of the people took it over in the Conservative Resurgence. They had the majority votes at the SBC for over two decades. (Can anyone argue they still should not have had control after winning vote after vote after vote?) They are called conservatives and believe in the divine inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. They also think our missionaries and professors, who are paid with our mission money, should also believe and teach the inerrancy of the Bible. Or, if you don’t like the word inerrancy, that the Bible is totally true and trustworthy.
I think the fairest terms are conservative and moderate. Don’t call someone a liberal unless you have good evidence. Don’t call someone a fundamentalist unless you have good evidence. And define your terms.
Difference between moderates and conservatives:
Conservatives believe missionaries and professors paid with our mission money should believe in inerrancy. That is a non-negotiable with them.
With moderates inerrancy is a negotiable; they can accept missionaries and professors who do, and those who don’t, believe the Bible is totally true and trustworthy. That is the major dividing line between the two groups in our convention.
David R. Brumbelow
There have been egregious errors committed by both sides in the struggle for the Bible, and there are fundamentalists involved as well as conservatives and modernists as well as moderates who do believe some things. None of this is easy, especially when considered in the light of the fact that God will call us all to account not only for what we believe but how we carried out our beliefs. Those who would jettison women for ministry like Lottie have to consider how many women have been treated cruelly by men who said they believed men were to rule over females. Society, beginning with the church, found that no one can be given unchecked power as man’s very nature is given to abuse, when there are no restraints. Those who want to kick out all churches and preachers who believe in ministry need to realize that they must put out Sandy Creek Church and Association and most of the churches in the SBC which grew out of Sandy Creek, including almost all of the churches in Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. They all spring from the church and the people who violated the norms now set by those who cover their views with the blanket of inerrancy and infallibility without realizing that they might just be wrong. After all, there are those who believe in inerrancy and infallibility today who disagree with them, people who are the successors as well as the descendants of our founders. Just because one believes in inerrancy and infallibility, that does not guarantee that his interpretation is inerrant and will not mislead. After all, Dr. Criswell once believed Blacks were inferior and could not be equals with whites. In short, he was then a racist. When he believed like that, I disagreed with him. Then he came to see the light and changed his mind. Every one has a right to change his or her mind, and Christians must respect that right, especially Baptists who believe one must be persuaded. Dr. Criswell also must have thought it was alright for Mrs. Criswell to teach men, for so she did according to what I know. What will you all say in the face of facts like that? Shall FBC Dallas be cast out, because they allowed a woman to teach men? Strict consistency would hold that since they violated the norms they must be put out. Can our present norm setters be wrong? Suppose we get down the road 20 years and every one suddenly realizes that I Tim 3:1 says anyone who desires the office of bishop desires a good work, that it uses the very same terminology that is used with reference to salvation, which surely allows women to seek the Lord in salvation as well as men? What then?
Someone rather facetiously threw off on one of the fountain heads of Puritan theology as if that Puritan were using another translation, when all that scholar was doing was calling attention to the otherwise inexplicable fact of women prophetesses whom God raised up to speak to the Israelites and even lead them in some instances. If God has done such, and He has, then it follows that to oppose such God called, gifted and endowed person is just as great a sin as opposing God Himself which it is. God is sovereign. He has the right to call and gift and endow and send whom He pleases. He sent a prophet to Nineveh who did not want to see the Ninevites saved, and as God dealt with His recalcitrant prophet so He can deal with those who think they have the last word on women in ministry and that as I found even from the view of verbal inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. Like John Robinson the pastor of the Pilgrims stated, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from Gd’s word.” That new light was a government based on the Bible more than any other source. That new light was the launching of the Great Century of Missions. That new light would be that Africans aren’t inferior to Whites,Neither ar American Indians ar any one else. All are descendants of Adam. All are in need of salvation. And God’s unconditional election of someone, even of someone else, is an invitation to the one apparently not included in the election to respond to Christ (Compare Luke 4:18-30 & Mt.15:21-28). Lik Dr. John Eusden stated “Predestination is an invitation to begin one’s spiritual pilgrimage.” I would say, “It is an invitation to be saved. And so it is with each point of the tulip outline along with reprobation. All are doctrines of grace, paradoxical interventions, designed to give man back his responsibility and dignity and salvation, regardless of how far he might have fallen. These are the truths necessary for another GREAT AWAKENING…as the were the truths that produced the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions.”
I must add also that exception is the way salvation works. God’s grace makes an exception to His law when He saves us. If salvation is an exception to the law, then surely the exception of a woman in ministry is no great and scarlet sin but matter of of God’s grace and purpose.
facetiously?
Nothing facetious about it. My intention was to indict Poole for teaching error if what you attributed to him is correct.
Paul did not end 1 Timothy 2:12 as Poole allegedly taught. He started out well enough as Paul wrote: I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man. (ESV)
Unlike Poole, Paul ended it with rather, she is to remain quiet.
Pretty simple really.
Matt:
How about asking PP and PP what their goal was for the SBC? I believe it starts with a complete takeover. Their goal has been accomplished.
The SBC of the 1979 when BMT was in full focus is gone.
Thank God for Page Patterson and Paul Pressler. Thank God for the complete takeover by conservatives. Thank God that we’re nothing like the SBC of the 1970′s.
David
Brother Tom,
Why not read it for yourself? Dr. Patterson has a booklet on his website where he clearly defines the purpose. You can read about it when you click here
Blessings,
Tim
I am thankful that the SBC where professors could deny the miracles of Jesus is gone. I am thankful the SBC where those who said homosexuality is not a sin were accepted and given a voice is gone. I’m glad the SBC where those who held that the Bible CONTAINED the word of God rather than it IS the word of God is gone. I’m glad the SBC where a seminary professor can publish an article saying that the New Testament writers who applied the Messianic Psalms to Christ had no idea what they were talking about (i.e. Peter was wrong in Acts 2) is gone.
It’s just too bad the CR didn’t go far enough. Anyone who got hurt, lost a job, had to move, whatever, in the CR got WAY better than they deserved.
The goal of Judge Paul Pressler, Dr. Paige Patterson and the Conservative Resurgence was to see the SBC take a stand for the inerrancy of the Bible. Their goal was to see that SBC missionaries, professors and agencies believe in and teach the inerrancy of the Bible. I know, I was there.
Praise God they accomplished their goal. Every one of our SBC agency heads, missionaries, and professors now believe the Bible is truth without mixture of error, totally true and trustworthy. That could certainly not have been said in 1979.
The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 now unambiguously affirms inerrancy (it says the Bible is totally true and trustworthy).
Read more about it in Jerry Sutton’s book, Baptist Reformation published by Broadman & Holman.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.,
Amen and amen and amen.
David
Lottie was a full-blown 5-point Calvinist!!! . . . If I had a choice, I would hear Lottie preach a sermon,any day, rather than today’s run-of-the-mill, free-will, take-a-pill, give-a-thrill, repeat-after-me-and-kneel, SBC preacher!
007:
I’m not suprised by anything you post. For you all is good in the SBC. What is your position on Lottie Moon’s preaching? As I said earlier I am very glad Lottie lived before you and the others took over the SBC.
Who were all these Liberals that you and others are so glad you cleansed the SBC of?
Who were all of these non-innerantist that you and the others are so glad you cleansed the SBC of?
Do you and others have a clue has to what was done to the SBC that has made the SBC impotent?
I really doubt it.
Just for the record, conservatives differentiate between women preachers and women pastors. The BFM2000 demonstrates this difference so Lottie Moon would be perfectly welcome in the Conservative Camp. Dear Moderate: find your own heroes if you can. Please don’t try to steal ours.
Why the anonymity on the part of some?
Catherine Allen has a sterling piece in the March issue of Baptists Today about the Chinese Woman who now Preaches at the church Lottie founded in China.
Average of 200 baptisms a year.
Ms. Allen takes Paige Patterson to the cleaners in this piece.
I hope many of you will search out a copy of Ms. Allen effort as I feel many of you will come to a different take on Patterson’s recent efforts to coopt Lottie for SWBTS; at same time develop a new appreciation for Women Preachers and the Gospel and Indigenous missions which was a great legacy of Moon
Tom,
One thing you have to keep in mind about Lottie Moon was that she was a missionary in a place where Christianity was brand new. This was a very unusual situation for her to be in. She expressed her concerns and misgivings about teaching men, but there were no men around to teach. So, she felt that she had no choice, but to do it.
So, this should not be the norm just because Lottie did it in a very unusual situation. It’d be like trying to base your theology on the book of Acts alone…without any of the rest of the NT. Not wise.
The Bible is very clear on this subject. A woman should not be over men…in authority, as the Bible teacher. That’s so clear in Scripture it aint even funny.
David
PS. I’m thankful for the life and service of Lottie Moon.
Were there liberals in the SBC? Of course there were. I personally heard some speak. In the 1960s and 1970s they were slowly growing in numbers and influence. The ruling moderates did not mind that they taught in our seminaries and served in our agencies and mission positions. That is why grassroots Baptists rose up and changed the leadership in our SBC.
Conservatives generally defined a liberal as someone who believes there are errors or could be errors in the Bible. The three seminaries that seemed to be especially influenced by liberal theology in the 1970s were Southern, Southeastern, and Midwestern. I personally heard one of these professors directly say that the Bible was wrong in a particular area. I heard some say and insinuate that it doesn’t really make a big difference whether a person believes in the Virgin Birth or not. A survey of that time showed students who began at SBTS were more conservative, and that they were more liberal when they graduated.
Where have the liberals gone? Some have gone on to their eternal reward. Some are retired. Others have gone to the Baptist Alliance, others to the American Baptist Churches (old Northern Baptist Convention), others to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. A few are still in the SBC, I imagine, but not in leadership, missionary, or teaching positions.
One day soon I’m going to write a blog article about specific cases of liberalism in the SBC, since some continue to deny it ever happened. You can also find proof of liberalism in the SBC back in those days, in the books by Dr. Jerry Sutton and Judge Paul Pressler.
David W., Thanks for your amens.
David R. Brumbelow
I almost howled with laughter, when I read Mr. Chadwick’s comment. He is saying precisely what I have been trying to set forth, namely, that there are women who know the truth and who preach the truth, and one would profit by listening to such. Lottie Moon was one of them, and she is now a probem for those who have a problem with females. I repeat there is a liberalism to biblical orthodoxy that is not present in the so-called liberal movements of the 20th century. In fact, most of those movements were not liberal at all. we need to realize the vitality of our biblical teachings and how they can open people up to compassion and consideration in their behavior toward one another. In 1985 I served as chairman of the historical committee of the Baptist State Convention of NC. While serving, I delivered an address on the subject, “The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses,” in which I sought to establish what might have been the biblical case for having eldresses who could even address the church. Up to that point, I had always held that a woman could not preach, though I knew of cases where they had done so. In any case, I found Matthew Poole’s comments were very likely the source for such thinking among the Puritans, and as I studied it I came to the conclusion that a case could be made out for such a thing from the perspective of verbal inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility. Imagine my chagrin, when the moderates merely mentioned it in the state paper and never responded it at all, and only one conservative ever read it and he handed it back with the comment, “I don’t agree.” Sadly, he never sought to answer my findings. Parties, groups, cliques, only have openings for their own, and that is the problem we are facing today. My prayer is for a Third Great Awakening which will strike off the shackles of our minds and help us to see the liberating as well as strengthening power of old biblical orthodoxy. My aim is noting less than the winning of the whole earth to the Lord Jesus Christ for a whole generation and then for a thousand more generations after that one in order to have a liberal fulfillment of the promises to Abraham of a seed as numerous as the stars of Heaven, the sand of the seashore and the dust of the earth, not to mention, the redeemed in Heaven, a number that no man can number.
Apparently, there will be no questions answered by Kevin.
It is an honest question: Do those of you who hold his view of women preaching/teaching believe it better to withold the gospel from pagan men rather than have it preached/taught from the lips of a woman. Kevin implied that by his criticism of Lottie. Maybe he’s thinking it over.
I suppose there is a calvinist answer to that question…
Perhaps Kevin is swamped with other duties.
Yeah, it is funny when people go after someone for NOT going on and on in the comment thread. The man works for the IMB- he is busy.
David B:
Were there mean and hateful fundamentalist that used the CR to destroy the lives of people who did not view theology exactly the way they did?
Is the SBC better than it was in 1979? No!!!
Man, that is my beef.
It’s always amazing when people make judgements based upon a person’s theology without any contact with that person. I personally had a ministry ripped out from under me by the president of the CBF simply because I was attending a seminary he did not like. I also had Paige Patterson personally reach out to help me in a difficult situation in my family — he only knew me from a friend of a friend of a friend. The all-CR people are evil and all CBF people are saints simply sounds hollow no matter how many times that bell is rung. PS–I don’t agree with moderates, but that does not make them evil — just mistaken
Anybody who’s life got “destroyed” in the CR got way better than they deserved. Name one, Tom, one person who was destroyed in the CR who:
*affirmed the miracles of Jesus and the virgin birth.
*affirmed the inerrancy of scripture (as expressed in the Chicago Statement)
*affirmed the verbal, plenary inspriation of scripture.
*affirmed homosexuality as being a sin without any exceptions whatsoever.
*affirmed the historicity of Genesis 1-11. Heck, I’d even take an Old Earther who said that Adam and Eve were the first humans, they were created, and the fall happened as it is recorded.
(crickets chirping)
Can’t name one, Tom? Yeah, thought so.
Yes, Mr. Parker there are mean and hateful fundamentalists and conservatives, but there are also mean and hateful liberals, modernists, and moderates. And what is interesting to observe is that fundamentalists and conservatives can do in their own. Likewise, liberals, modernists, and moderates have been guilty of doing the same. I have seen these things happen. I must also point out that the same parties have those who will go out of their way to do some a good, their own as well as others with whom they disagree. Selah. Pause and give thought to that fact, that reality. No one is justified in doing evil, but one must choose to do good wihout putting a limitation on the recipients of one’ good. These differences are a challenge to our view of Agape Love. How we respond at this point tells more about our orthodoxy that anything else.
Too busy? Not too busy to put together a 600+ word piece not commending Lottie Moon that raises perfectly good questions.
Of course, if your approach is to make pronouncements about how God is best glorified for the rest of us to swallow or no, then fine.
An anonymous troll.
Why can’t David Brumbelow and Judge Pressler get the women at the WMU hdqrtrs who raise the money for the Lottie Moon Offering which is about the last thing holding the SBC together; why can’t th CR get the women to sign the BFM 2000?
I give you a hint; they don’t buy it; they don’t believe in a six day creation, that the Bible ever claimed to be a Science text book.
And if Lottie Moon were alive today, she wouldn’t sign it either. Catherine Allen is right about that.
I heard Cat Allen say in the flesh if Lottie were alive today,she would be appalled at what is done in her name.
I do hope Brumbelow will find a copy of the March issue of Baps Today soon and read Cat Allen’s filleting of Paige Patterson.
It is glorious
I wish the SBC was structured so that anyone at the WMU who would not sign the BFM 2k would be given an opportunity to go work for the CBF. I’d love that to happen actually.
Stephen:
I wonder out loud what would have happened to the SBC financially had it not been for women?
Why wont the WMU sign it? That’s a good question, and it causes much of us thru out the SBC concern. It also makes us glad that their main work is just to help raise money for the missions. Also, many local Church WMU’s do a great job making our Churches more aware of missions. But, these national and state WMU leaders should have to sign the BFM2K, or else not be leaders.
If they cant believe that God can create the world in 6 days, but would rather hold to some, godless scientists theory(guess);and cant hold to the Biblical teaching of creation and family and Pastor/Elder qualifications, then they dont need to be leaders in the SBC. Thanks for raising the missions money, but….
Also, Lottie Moon is not around today to know whether she would sign the BFM2K, or not. Or, are you and your favorite author mind readers now? And, even if Lottie wouldnt sign it, she’d still be wrong. Just because she’s Lottie Moon, or Billy Grahams daughter, doesnt make them right.
Tom, all of us in the CR…including all of the women, who were in the CR, and who were behind the CR, and who are appreciative of the CR still to this day….are very aware of the great contributions of the women in our churches. And, we’re very thankful for all they do for the glory of God. Most of the women I know are very glad that the CR took place….just as glad as I am.
David
I’m not sure who half of these people are here, if the names used are real names, or if a full name required to get a question answered. I gave a real email address.
But if you want to dodge honest discussion, then blame the ones who are asking questions.
William Thornton
007:
The WMU is an auxillary and does not have to sign the 2000 BF&M creed. Maybe you could get these women at the WMU to quit helping with the Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong offering. Surely it is embarassing to have these ladies helping with the finances of the SBC.
Always glad for the women to help raise money. Why wouldnt we want the women to be helping raise money for missions?
David
007:
PP will never be able to hardwire the WMU. They are autonomous. Aint that wonderful for the women. Does this cause you angst?
Tom,
PP told me to tell you that we dont want the WMU. It doesnt cause PP any angst at all.
David
I don’t have any problem with signing that I believe in a 6 day creation and an earth no more than 6-10,000 yrs. old, but then few have had the advantages I have had of studing the intellectual and methodological backgrounds of the scientific theory. Few, today, outside of the field of scientific theory are aware of the problems with our present method. It is flawed, too analytical, not synthetical enough, in need of help, when the null hypothesis is just as valid as the original thesis that the null denies. In other words what does one do with apparently contradictory ideas, etc., which are both true? How does one devise a method large enough to comprehend two apparently contradictory truths? However, having said all that, we have to allow people to progress as they are able without absolutely shutting them out,for when we do that we destroy our doctrine of liberty, no slight failure but a major violation of freedom.
I can well appreciate, however, the conservatives feeling of frutration wih the WMU; they are following the moderate line very well, thank you. I use to feel the same way, when the moderates told me, when things were only in the fussing stage and before the voting really started, that they could not have verbal inspirationists teaching at my seminary (which meant they couldn’t have me). I still feel frustrated due to having a second marriage (good for 40 years plus with 24 years of my 28 years pastoring taking place in that 40), and finding conservaties more than willing to shut me out just like the moderates. Sometimes I feel like saying a pox on both houses and hauling buggy (common colloquialism in the Tar Heel state), except I never was a quitter (not after hoeing thousands (hundreds?)of miles of cotton, corn, and soy beans as a child – you aint allowed to quit in the fields). You hang in there until Hell freezes over (I intend to do all I can to shrink Satan’s kingdom to a narrow pit – God willing). It is a wonderful time to be alive and to have a challenge like the one before us: To win the moderates to doctrines they see misrepresented every day, and conservatives who don’t understand that even when the Bible is clear it is another medium and we are in over our heads. Those who reject me usually wind up reading an old adulterer and murderer for inspiration (David, the man after God’s own heart, no less). What does one do with forgiven sinners? Hold their past against them? Think of winning the whole earth and every soul on it for a 1000 generations in order to have a literal fulillment of the promises to Abraham of a seed as numerous as the stars of Heaven, the sand by the seashore, and the dust of the earth. Anybody care to take a guess at the number of Abraham’s seed in those kind of numbers? Isn’t God wonderful for depth of compassion, power of love, and patience with all of us in our down right silliness? Just think: As dumb and foolish as we are, we are going to win in the end due to our Helper. Can’t beat that for joy and uplift. Now let every body go to bed with a sense of wonder and joy in their hearts.
Also I want to win the old fashioned way, but the truth, by persuasion, by evidence, where the other fellow is freely won by undeniable truth – like I won my friend Mr. Spurgeon to believing in irresistible grace. Told him it was so, and he won a lady who told him she accepted so readily because it was so wonderful that so couldn’t resist it. So he thought about it for 40 years and decided that I and the lady he won were right. Now that is the only way I think winning is worthwhile.
It is hard to win with verbal inspiration, when others who believe it think you got use it as a billy club to beat others into submission instead of seeking to show them how it is so appropriate, so fit, so appealing, so reflective of the divine omniscience that inspired it, that it enables and empowers one to become balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. Now that is an irresistible reality, when once it becomes clear to the inquiring mind that wants to know. We all ought to be about the business of winning the moderates, but folks who swing the billy club really treat a fine weapon with disrespect.
This thing ain’t posting right. My last line on the previous blog was about going to bed. Hw did this thing get it out of order?
PP and BB and MY and all the rest of us who are in BIC are in favor of the “women” raising money. We’re also for chocolate ice cream being served at the SBC free of charge. Watch for this to happen in Orlando!!!!
David
007:
What you goin to do to get those women in the WMU to sign that creed, o, the 2000 BF&M. Maybe you can make a motion at the SBC this summer that the WMU be removed from the SBC.
Will not work because they are an auxillary. It might do you some good to read about why the WMU is an auxillary. But if you do it might really upset you that what the men meant to do to the WMU has backfired in a mighty big way.
Tom,
PP asked me to ask you if you would like for Lifeway logo to be changed? All of us involved with the others would be glad to do that for you. Do you?
David
Tom,
As has been pointed out, there have been times wrong was done on both sides. Both conservatives and moderates are capable of acting ungodly. But if it is a matter of character, ability and willingness to do the job, or a serious doctrinal problem – sometimes a person needs to loose a job. No one just “has the right” to make a living with our mission money. If a SBC denominational worker does not believe in inerrancy, he should find another field of work; for Southern Baptists have spoken plainly on this subject. By the way, very few were fired as a result of the SBC Conservative Resurgence.
Conservatives overall have been outstanding in their behavior during the years of the Conservative Resurgence. You will find few who love the Lord more, and have personally witnessed to the lost more, than conservative leaders like Dr. Paige Patterson, Judge Paul Pressler, Adrian Rogers, Jimmy Draper, etc.
Stephen,
I imagine the reason the leaders of the WMU will not sign the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 is because they are moderates and disagree with it.
On the other hand, it is not accurate to imply that all women are on the moderate side and for women pastors. That is just not so. During the years of the Conservative Resurgence multitudes of SBC women voted in favor of the SBC taking a stand for the inerrancy of the Bible. Praise God for their commitment.
About Lottie Moon. “At one time [C. H.] Toy and Lottie Moon, the famous Southern Baptist Missionary to China, seriously considered marriage to each other. However, she rejected his proposal in 1879 because she considered his theological position untenable. She had carefully read the books recommended to her by Toy, as can be seen by marginal notations in her copies of the books. She was also aware of the problems caused at Southern Seminary by Toy’s [theologically liberal] views. When asked by a relative in later years if she had ever been in love she answered, ‘Yes, but God had first claim on my life, and since the two conflicted, there could be no question about the result.’” -Baptists and the Bible, Bush & Nettles; published by Moody Press, and by Broadman & Holman.
Lottie Moon was more conservative and more theologically aware, than some are giving her credit for.
David R. Brumbelow
You are right to some extent, DB. I thought it woulda been grand if women in churches like DAwson Memorial in Bham and FBC MGomery who lead Bama in percentage giving to the CP would have sat down and watched the grilling fundamentalist women placed on the IMB gave Dellana Obrien and her staff in 93. I think they would have been appalled at the behavior of the fundamentalist women trustees and how they treated WMU national staff
Did you see that video? It lasted about 90 minutes. I remember a REv Purvis from Darlington SC was prominent speaker in that Inquisition.
There is no question in my mind that Lottie Moon woulda been with WMU staff on that day.
And there is no question Moon would have more in common with Crawford Toy, than she would have with Jerry Falwell, WA Criswell and DJ Kennedy.
I hope you can find a copy of Catherine Allen’s charge to Paige Patterson in the March issue of Baptists Today. Let us know when you read her article. And have all Baptist women that you know read it as well and give us an updated report from those who read the article.
Stephen:
Were can I find the video? I did not realize the WMU staff had been mistreated this way. I am so glad they have stood their ground.
It was about 20 years ago. Best I remember Mainstream Baptists were distributing them for a while.
Good library like Baylor or Samford should have them in their Baptist Collection; and or call your state WMU leadership to see if they would loan you one for postage if you want to pay; and or the National Headquarters in Bham
What state do you live in???
Stephen:
NC.
Wishful thinking on both sides will not make Lottie into a candidate for either party in somerspoects. First, there is no doubt about where she stood on Scripture. The biography on Toy by a Harvard colleague is clear that Lottie broke her engagemnt with Toy due to his views on th Scripture. Lottie’s commitment to the Bible and her commitment to Sovereign Grace is about what one would expect of a convert bapized and educated by Dr. John A. Broadus. That worthy has been cited by moderates, but in a debate with William Rainey Harper, President of the Univ. of Chicago, Dr. Broadus walked out saying, “Jesus said, ‘Mose wrote of me.’” He made the statement three times. Lottie was firmly committed. Alas, for the conservatives, she also preached and did some things that they would fire her for today, because they simply do not understand that just because a statement is clear that does not necessarily mean we grasp its depths. They would also boot out Shubal Stearns, Daniel Marshall, and Martha Stearns Marshall along with Sandy Creek Church and Sandy Creek Association, followed by Georgia and Tennessee Baptists and most of Virginia Baptists along with many South Carolina Baptists. After all, Those folks were connected to the great evil of women speaking. never mind about the Bible being verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible when it tells that Abraham must do what Sarah said…or that the Puritans could speak of their being exceptions due to the Sovereignty of God. Nineveh had to repent at the Message of a prophet who did not want to see them spared. Neither the conservatives, even those who supposedly believe in the Sovereignty of God, seem to realize tha God is free to speak His word and have serve a purpose other than its explicit statement (note Jonah 3:4)(purpose to bring the Ninevites to repentance), nor the moderates, whose interpetationschange with the last stray wind of criticism that had much, if not all, of its origins in apostate, cynical skeptics, forgetting that the depths of a book supposedly inspired by omniscience just might be deeper than the limited tools of scholarship of the latest date. The “assured results” are often found later to be neither “assured” nor “results,” while the text is often found to be better than the methods with which it is studied. Both groups, if and when thy separate, will find that eventually the will consume one another of their own parties, because neither group understands the nature of how ideas (doctrines in this case) actually effect human behavior. Both parties demonstrate an appalling lack of insight into the nature and effect of the teachings they claim to represent. A brief comparison between the Baptists of the 18th century and those of the 20th are remarkable for their differences. That early generation of believers show more balance, flexibility, creativity, an magnetism, while those of the past 100 years show a great deal of polarization, rigidity, inability, low ambiguity toleration, the inability to cope wih conflicting situations, and the tendency to close minded responses, and I mean both groups. I think some one somewhre must feel a sense of glee at being able to sow so many seeds of disruption which will surely scuttle the last great Protestant mission effort. And if I mistake not, those who feel that sense of elation will one day grieve providing their cause successful. The one great hindrance to that sad score being the possibility of a great awakening like the two that nearly destroyed the puppet masters’ control in the period from 1740-1820. God grant us such a visitation to over come our adversary.
Toy said about Lottie when he was her student at what became UVA if I’m not mistaken, she had the greatest command of the English Language of any female he’d ever been in contact with.
Lottie was like a character in my friend Ron RAsh’s novel World Made STraight: “Smarts like hers just didn’t spring up like a daisy in a bunch of hogweed.”
I think it easy and honest to imagine if Lottie were with us today she would be something like Julie Pennington Russell, maybe Fleming Rutledge, and in concert with the thinking of Pulitzer’s Marilynne Robinson.
Pelikan’s Jesus Through the Centuries may the lens we should imagine a contemporary Lottie.
For sure she wouldn’t be wearin a hat teachin Home Ec at SWBTS; though God Bless and I mean it from the bottom of my heart, all the women who prepare the grand food at church fellowships.
No less than Marney’s hero JD Salinger commended the good work lifelong at his Upstate NY parish.
Tom Parker, send an email to Dr. Willingham there in NC and he can forward it to me and we’ll explore the WMU video logistics.
Stephen,
I think it’s very unfair to assume what Lottie Moon would be doing today. Nobody can say what Lottie would be doing in our day and time. That’s as bad as some scientist telling us that billions and billions and billions of years ago, the “Whateverasauras” had feathers on his body, and he loved to eat fish.
David
It is one thing to argue for women speaking to men. It is another thing altogether to argue for women pastors. Because Lottie Moon occasionally spoke when men were present, in no way means she was therefore in favor of women pastors. That is a big leap.
To those who claim Lottie Moon would be kicked out of the SBC today. Baptists of Lottie Moon’s day were much more strict against women speaking to men in church, than they are today. I don’t hear of any women being kicked out of the convention for speaking to men. Where you draw the line on that is up to individual Baptists and local churches.
Yes, a few churches have been disfellowshipped for having a woman pastor, but not for having a woman speak to a group of men and women.
David R. Brumbelow
What David B. just said.
David
David B just said it VERY well. Funny how some cannot see the difference from teaching and sharing vs. being a Pastor.
Mrs. Criswel taught men. My wife teaches a class that men attend. Big difference from serving as a Pastor.
I think some just jump over the obvious that contradicts their falsehoods and spin!
So:
Should Anne Graham Lotz, Billy’s DAughter, face censure for preaching at the Alabama Baptist Convention?
And what about Adrian Rogers’s son David who has endorsed the idea of ordaining women as deacons.
What are you gonna do with them; kick them out too?
Stephen,
Dont be absurd- there are a lot of comps that believe women can be deacons.
Leroy Seat’s new book Fed Up with Fundamentalism
Just saw a review and here is another.
Hope Volfan, DRBrumbelow and friends will find a copy soon or reead the review in current Baptist Peacemakers of North America.
http://www.llumina.com/store/fedupwithfundamentalism.htm
Some of the commenters here are just mad that Lottie Moon each spoke the Gospel in the presence of men. Your narrowness is showing. It is why the SBC is in trouble.
My last comment should read–even spoke the Gospel.
Kevin:
We all know you are a busy man, but could you provide us readers with a list of the current women preachers in the SBC and should there be a realistic fear that more are on the horizon. My thanks in advance.
Matt:
I asked Kevin:”We all know you are a busy man, but could you provide us readers with a list of the current women preachers in the SBC and should there be a realistic fear that more are on the horizon. My thanks in advance.:
Maybe you can answer my question to Kevin.
Maybe YOU could get a hobby or something.
Tom,
I honestly have no idea how many women preachers in the SBC there are, who they are, or where they are.
I would open that question up to everyone: Anyone know who the women preachers in the SBC are?
For me, I do not fear that more are on the horizon… Why? The SBC has taken a strong stance on the issue and I dont see them backing down. I think baptist women who feel like they are called to pastor churches are eventually going to stop trying to do that within the SBC… But maybe I am being optimistic.
Stan:
Maybe you can answer my question.
About 30 of over 40,000 churches currently have a woman as pastor – only 2 of 5,000 Southern Baptist congregations in Texas.
Not sure of the date.
Out of curiosity, is there a reason you couldn’t Google that?
Stan:
I forgot to capitalize YOU FOR YOU.
Why the attitude?
How about that room full of Baptist preachers who turned their backs on Billy Graham’s daughter? Conservatives sure look ugly in that instance, and I say that as one who holds to the conservative view of scripture. I don’t think those folks ever read I Cors.13:5, “Love does not behave itself unseemly.” Also, not many seem to realize the God is Sovereign over His word, and a clear statement can have a purpose other than a literal, traight forward fulfillment. It has not escaped me that no one commented on my remarks about Jonah 3:4!
Dr. Willingham:
I would hope through your various networks someone could bring to you NT Wright’s latest books on the character of Christianity.
His couple pages on inerrancy as a distraction, a stumblingblock to what the Bible is about is sublime; and you could be a grand messenger in the various fundamentalist sites your are now trafficking to bear witness to a consensus discarded instrument for approaching Scripture that has wormed its way into Public School history text selection in TExas; and now has an ARP school, Erskine, in Due West SC in great travail
Stephen,
A quote from the book review you recommend, “…it is possible to be a faithful follower of Christ without being a fundamentalist.” I agree. I am not a fundamentalist, and never called myself that, except in jest. Neither did Adrian Rogers, Jimmy Draper, Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman, or the other leaders of the SBC Conservative Resurgence (CR). They simply went by the name conservative. When someone calls them fundamentalist you know they are seeking to slur them by calling them a name with negative connotations. Even the SBC Peace Committee (back in the middle of the CR) recognized that.
The papers you keep referencing: In case some do not realize it, they are theologically moderate to liberal Baptist publications. They have a perfect right, of course, to publish their views, but Southern Baptists should know where they stand. By the way, you may be surprised to know that I subscribed to Baptists Today for several years, even back when they had the previous name of SBC Today. It and Baptist Peacemakers certainly tend toward the moderate to liberal spectrum of Baptists.
Do you believe it is wrong for a conservative group of Baptists to say we believe all our professors and missionaries should believe in inerrancy? If we pay the salaries don’t we have some say about the kind of people we employ? J. B. Gambrell said, “Baptists will not ride a horse without a bridle.”
David R. Brumbelow
DRB: I have a blog for you on the subject of How Should Women Preachers Dress.
Raises this discussion to a higher level
http://www.edsundaywinters.wordpress.com or google some variation of that.
I am a little late on my oatmeal this morning so I promise to come back to your question.
At the moment I do want to say I think it was 1990 when the former Bircher Albert Lee Smith through the machinations of Judge Pressler, Richard Land, Helms operative Sam Currin and company had wormed his way onto the board of the Baptist Joint Committee and there was an exchange between Albert Lee from a microphone and Reinhold Niebuhr’s grand nephew Gus Niebuhr who was on panel in BJC symposium ( I think Sam Donaldson was on same panel that day) and Albert Lee asked Gus to quit referring to SBC fundamentalists as fundamentalists and Gus who was writing for Wall Street Journal at the time I think, he’s now at Syracuse; said in effect there was no animus in the term, but words do have meaning, and by the fairest and most literate calculation SBC fundamentalists in the takeover crusade are in fact fundamentalists.
Now you can imagine conspiracy in all that if you want; but I think Gus is Right.
Since then he has written a book Beyond Tolerance which I commend to you if for nothing else the ten insightful pages on Baptist presence in the civic community of Louisville, Ky where you may see Gambrell in a new light; then again, in all sincerity, not as a taunt, you may not.
NT Wright on Inerracy. You should not be far from a Barnes and Noble. They are prominently displayed there. He respects inerrantists for their passion, but says the tool of inerrancy is a distraction to most valid gettin on with it in the Kingdom of God.
I hope we both can get our hands on a copy of Leroy Treat’s book.
I give you there was a lot of heartfelt conviction in the crusade to redirect the SBC, but it was misdirected and poisoned by right wing politics of it historical context.
That is my deep conviction and my oatmeal is waiting and I am approaching the limits of my ability to articulate and I must stay within my game, contain myself.
With Dr. Willingham we’ll continue to grope here toward some common ground, if we can find any on the market.
Do please take a look at EdSundaywinters wordpress blog.
Misguided at a minimum, with strong dose of sinister power grab, unethically implemented, is better articulation of what I was trying to get at above, instead of the weak word misdirected.
Wherever you place Treat spectrum on your arbitrary theological spectrum is not the point. The point is Treat is correct the fundamentalist crusade in the SBC was unethical; and while the resistance movement had its moments of humanity; the weight of duplicity, envy, demagoguery, odorousness was with the crusaders.
David Morgan makes that point very strong in his book in the BX 6400′s and did so 20 years ago. And Carey Newman who was at Mohler’s SBTS under the Covenant agreement of 94 post the Honeycutt house cleaning, says it even stronger in BArry Hankins Uneasy in Babylon.
Ithink Ihave already mention Jon Butler of Yale is at Erskine College today talking about Surprises in American Religion. I may pick up that thought later.
Steve: I very nearly flunked out of the doctoral program, because I wrote a paper on verbal inspiration expressed in the article in the Billy Graham Lausanne Covenant in ’74. The professor went ape, because he did not like the approach I took, but he put no mark on the paper as I had written it according to the standards required. Still he was willing to ruin me and would have, if a friend in the class had not warned me and told me what to do. Having studied many volumes on inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility across the past 50 odd years, I seriously doubt that N.T. Wright can present a convincing enough case to undo the very view that Jesus Himself took of the Bible according to Kirsopp Lake and some other so-called liberals I have read. Now, just because some one adopts the view of inerrancy, that does not mean he or she is right or inerrant in their interpretations and understandings of the Bible. Also, I point out conservatives eat conservatives and moderates eat moderates, simply because once you set out to be an eater of thedisagreeable, you will soon find that you also eat your own. It is an unalterable law of pornography, the law of the Medes and the Persians. We are getting ready to have, I pray, another Great Awakening, and what is invovled in that is the right theology, a heavenly presence, and a spirit of humility. If the Awakening comes not (and I am no prophet or the son of one), and if the economy collapses as some have intended, our whole civilization, world-wide, will descend into chaos and calamities, with multitudes perishing in starvation, etc. My prayer is: “God grant us the grace to be willing to look at our infernal sins and weaknesses, and the grace not only to look at them but to turn from them.” This bickering back and forth with the hateful expressions expressed toward one another really needs to give place to penitential tears of grief that we should so abuse one another who, if not now, might surely later, become our brother or sister in Christ.
Dr. Willingham:
I have respect for your testimony here and your experience.
But weighed in the larger picture of what Charles Marsh writes about the Lausanne Conference, Billy Graham in the historical context of Marshall Frady’s framing of him; in the grand picture Stewart Newman and Randall Lolley had considerably more virtue and insight into the scholarly advancement of the Gospel and its reverberations for the Kingdom of God than Jerry Falwell and Jerry Vines.
Truth comes through many vessels, I agree; and who am I to say Vines and Falwell and Adrian Rogers had some light here and there.
We have talked about all this before in consideration of Marney and Trentham. Even Willimon had interesting piece in Christian Century on Falwell’s visit to the Duke Chapel.
But Willimon and NT Wright and Charles Marsh don’t sign off on the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC just because you had quibbles with an SEBTS proff on the Lausanne Covenant. I wish it had worked out more fairly for you.
NT Wright remains grand on these matters. He does not stand in the way of your hope for somethinglike another Great Awakening.
The Pulitzer’s Marilynne Robinson is with you.
I don’t know whatelse you want me to say.
In the line of great virtue in Baptist Christendom, you cannot convince me the JFrank Norris, Criswell, Vine, Mohler, Vines, Falwell, Caner, Pressler, Patterson, strain is what God chose over George Truett, Dilday, Keith Parks, Carolyn WEatherford, Delanna Obrien, Bill Leonard and Charles Marsh, Robert Parham, Dan Vestal, John Baugh, Stewart Newman, Randall Lolley Grand River of Baptist Witness.
It just ain’t so.
The fundamentalist crusade in the SBC didn’t save the Bible from anything; just added to the baggage of their own conceits and illusions and the confusion of the times in which they lived.
I’m sorry, but Karl Rove, Paul Pressler, the Texas Regulars and Lee Atwater and Richard Land are not the civic Princes a Biblical shaped view aid and abet.
Dear Steve and other interested parties:
The party spirit is not a game I really desire to play. While I approved of some things in the conservative effort to bring the SBC back to a stronger commitment to scripture, I do not buy everything the movement advocates. Neiter am I so willing to have at any of the moderates and/or conservatives about their short comings. We all have them, and we have all done or said things that we have reason later to regret. It is extremely hard in the heat of disagreements to keep from egregious words and actions. I know there are things the moderates you named have done that are good, and I know the same about the conservatives. I also know the individuals of both groups have made some really dumb mistakes. Having said that, I don’t wish to go on any crusade. God did not call me to straighten out everyone. My task is bit more pleasant; I have the pleasant assignment of preaching the Good News, the Gospel, which can do more to bring people to their senses in the long run than any amount of organized efforts to correct abuses. Look, sometime you have to act, but if you do it with the idea that it will be completely successful then I have bad news for you. My desire is to win people to my belief system by the facts, by good influence, by persuasion. I think we are all concerned about our society and the state of the world. If the economic system of the world collapses, we are likely to have chaos and war with millions dying. We desperately need an awakening, a moral and spiritual awakening, not a beat-you-over-the-head effort which guarantees self-defeat. Steve, not a person who reads this blog and the comments on it, I would think, wants any less or any more than for truth to succeed by peaceful means of persuasion based on verifiable evidence, reliable witnesses, and the marvel of God’s blessed presence and help to enable us to become reconciled to one another on the basis of truth and love.
Your last comment has been one of the best, one of the most appealing (and there are others) as you treated me with respect. You are a brilliant person, literate in the higest sense, able to reason, quick to grasp reality. Think what it would mean, if you and the others on this blog were to give your selves to actually trying to see if you all could work your way through your differences to peaceful and amicable resolutions that honor the Lord Jesus Christ.
I had the privilege to be a group leader in race relations conference during the effort to massively integrate a school system in South Carolina in 1970-71. We used the johari window to try and help people to get a handle on their perceptions of relations between white and black Americans. That helped (it did not bring perfect solution) to enable people to come to grips with something that should be.
Now a word to the moderates, permit me to tell you about the reconciliation commission of South Africa led by people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The really great thing about the whole thing was not the amount of progress they made; it was that they even tried at all. Reconciliation in the face of horrendous crimes committed? What a wonderful try on the part of every one involved. I wept when I saw it, and I have tears in my heart right now as I think about it.
To the conservatives, there is the historic example of Whitefield and Wesley, an effort to overcome serious theological differences for the sake of the work. After a very strident conflict involving tracts and sermons and name calling, they were able to work through the differences. Whitefield requested that Wesley preach his funeral, and when asked why when he disagreed and surely did not expect to see Wesley in Heaven, Whitefield replied, “i don’t expect to see him in Heaven, because he will be so close to the throne and I will be so far away, I won’t be able to see him.” Wesley did preach his funeral, and when the same question was put to him said, “”I don’t expect to see him in Heaven, because he will be so close to the throne and I so far away I won’t be able to see him.” That from the two representatives of Calvinism and Arminianism in the 1700s (one of the reasons why I have mentioned that they were more balanced, flexible, creative and magnetic than we are today).
And if that is not enough let me mention Jonathan Edwards who took George Whitefield to task for his constant attack on the unconverted ministry. Edwards calls attention somewhere to the fact that Judas is a reason we can’t afford to make such attacks. In Whitefield’s case one focus of his ire was Harvard College for its opppsition to his awakening ministry. After Edwards had a personal talk with Whitefield during a ride to latter’s next appointment, Whitefield ceased his attacks. And when Harvard’s library burned, he lent his enormous money raising abilities to their effort to replace the great loss for which Harvard thanked him. These things challenge the conservatives just as the reconciliation commission of South Africa challenges moderates to make the efort to work things out to the point were we can maintain this great mission force that Southern Baptists have.
It is my prayer that we shall have a Third Great Awakenng which might enable and empower us to work through our differences, giving truth the opportunity to persuade us to change where we need to and to not change where we don’t need to and the wisdom to know the difference as well as the compassion for our fellow man laboring under the same difficulties from another perspective.
The end result is the winning of the whole world. We might not succeed, but we have every reason for trying, regardless of our eschatology or theology. We also have the promises of go discussed by Jonathan Edwards in his Humble Attempt which appealed to Christians of all denominations to unite in prayer for the propagation of the Gospel thoughout the whole world and and discussed the verses that could be pleaded in prayer for the success of that venture. As you all surely know William Carey was one of those who began pleading those promises about 1785, and the rest, as they say, is history. Who does not feel the burning of their heart for that thing to take place again? Think of how they set out to win the whole world to a calvinistic viewpoint of the Bible, the doctrines of grace, paradoxical interventions that restore to the person who embraces them with understanding the power to become responsible and behave responsibly. What more could any of us want than that?
Thankfully, the CR did happen. Conservatives now control the SBC. We like what’s happening in the SBC…mostly. There needs to be some changes made, but overall, the SBC is the best thing going. So, thank the Lord the CR happened, and that conservatives now control the SBC. Hallelujah!
So, it doesnt really matter who in here tries to rewrite history; tries to bring up the bad things that happened; is sad and upset about the CR having happened; doesnt like that conservatives control the SBC; and demand that people in leadership positions believe in inerrancy. It has happened. It is happening. It is going on right now. And, all of us conservatives are as happy as a hog in cool mud on a hot, July day about it.
Thank God.
David
Here’s an article for Volfan, DRBrumbelow and Dr.Willingham to explore
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/01/erskine#Comments
I linked it in the Culture Clash thread but thought it most appropriate here as well.
Pride is utterly condemned in Scripture; it was the original sin with Satan. The Bible says, Prov.16:18, “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” As one of those who went to vote for the Bible (I attended my first convention around 59 or 61) beginning with the one in Kansas City in ’63, I can only say that the fact that we had to take such action spoke of our failure to win our opponents on the issue of Scripture. It is still my aim to win the moderates to the view of the Lord Jesus Christ on Scripture which He literally called “law”, “the word of God”, and “the scripture”(Jn.10:34,35), and when he referred to “law” he was actually speaking of Ps.82:6. But when people who claim to believe the Bible crow in pride over bested opponents, they forget all the Book has to say about humbleness of mind and humility of spirit.
There were three elements in the Great Awakenings, namely, the right theology (Sovereign Grace), the Divine/Heavenly Presence, and the spirit of humility where someone like Whitefield could receive a rebuke from Jonathan Edwards and then began to change his conduct. Having prayed now these 37 years for the Third Great Awakening and having realized that the promises Edwards wrote about evidently portend the conversion of the whole earth in one generation and perhaps even for a 1000 more generations in order to fulfill the promise to Abraham in a very literal sense (a seed as numerous as the stars of heaven, the sand by the seashore and the dust of the earth), I think we must adopt a kinder, gentler, sweeter spirit tward others. Soon this visitation might well begin, and then it will behoove all of us to humble ourselves when our Lord makes manifest the effects of His presence. Indeed, we will not be able to do otherwise. And who cares about crowing, I woul rather hide under the safety of His wings and to mount upon them, letting Him win even our enemies as well as those who might really be our friends, if the shackles of limitations on our unerstanding were struck off.
Tim G and others: Thanks for your encouragement.
David Brumbelow, Matt Svoboda, Stan McCullars, David (vol): I appreciated much of what you had to say.
William Thornton (#7, 9, 40): Here’s what I wrote on 3/8/2010 at my personal blog in response to your post: Is it sometimes OK to violate Scripture, even if for a good cause? Was God aware of such situations, like the one LM found herself in, when he inspired Paul to pen those words in 1 Tim? And now I add: With your concern for pagan men, I hope you’re sharing with pagans on a regular basis and helping other Christian men go to the pagans.
John R. Mueller (#12): I dig your sarcasm. Your post was pithy, witty, and to the point. I like it. You said, “Read John 20:1-18. It’s in the Bible, too. Mary was “announcing” (NASB) the good news of the resurrection to the disciples. Guess she should have kept her mouth shut and waited for a MAN to do it, shouldn’t she, dear legalists?” At least you’re using biblical texts to make an argument. My short answer is, do we ignore a clear text like 1 Tim 2 in favor of narrative? Narrative is inspired and inerrant too, so we must not ignore it. For a detailed response to some biblical examples you cited, see my article at NeedNotFret.com, Examining Bilezikian’s Book, “Beyond Sex Roles”. (http://www.neednotfret.com/content/view/87/63/)
James Willingham: I’m glad you love church history (#16). I love it too. Yes, Mrs. Criswell taught at FBC Dallas for many years, a class that had both women and men in it. Again, though, our standard isn’t any woman of the past like Lottie Moon or Mrs. Criswell or even a man like W. A. Criswell. It’s Scripture, and on this point of women teaching men, Scripture is clear.
Matt2239 (#34): You said, “… conservatives differentiate between women preachers and women pastors.” You’re right. Many conservative people have no problem with women preaching to men. But the real issue is, does this accurately represent what Paul said in 1 Tim 2? (I address this in my article at SBCvoices.com, Women and SBC Ministry: Clarifying the BF&M 2000.) (http://sbcvoices.com/women-and-sbc-ministry-clarifying-the-2000-bfm/)
Tom Parker: By your question (#77), I presume you mean, any list of SBC female preachers would be small and, thus, presents no threat to the conservative base, so why bring up the topic? The Bible speaks clearly to the issue of women preachers and women leading men. Lottie Moon is an example of much good and a little bad. Why not talk about the issue?
To all: Scripture must lead us in this discussion. Otherwise, we fall into error.
Joy in Jesus,
kev
I made a mistake in my previous comment post with some of the numbers I listed as a reference number for people’s comments. I believe it should read:
William Thornton (#3, 7, 9, 26).
Matt2239 (#35).
Tom Parker (#78).
Sorry!
Dear Kevin:
Clarity is also a problem for us as we have are wanting in depth perception in another medium (as my friend was who could see the grains of sand rolling along the bottom of a mountain stream and deduced that it was only 2-3 feet deep. It wasn’t; it was 18-20 feet and he almost drowned), especially in the spiritual realm. Consider how clear and literal the statement is of Jonah’s prophecy to the city of Nineveh. Literally, the prophecy must be fulfilled exactly as stated. The rule in the law is any one making such prophecy and having it not be fulfilled exactly as stated is that he is to be stoned or put to death. However we know the clear prophecy and its literal fulfillment was not the real issue; the real issue was the purpose for which God stated it, namely, to bring the Ninevites to their senses and repentance.
Now as to the issue of women in ministry, we have the clear statement, I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man,” and that sounds clear enough, but there are some problems with it. Consider how the statement in I Tim. 3:1, “he that desires the office of bishop desires a good work,” is actually using the gender neutral approach found in invitations and commands to repent and believe. The expression is, “ei tis,” “if anyone,” as the NIV and the literal interlinear of the Greek-English New Testament, and as my Greek concordances, textbooks, and lexicons, put it. If Paul was that concerned about women, why did he not say, “If a Man, aner, instead of tis, anyone?” Why also did he use the expression eldresses in I Tim.5:2, after using the term elder in 5:1. Also I should mention that Phoebe is not a deaconness of the church of Cenchrea, but a Deacon, masculine term, in Roms.16 (tsk! Tsk! Paul don’t you know your modern readers will take you to task for that goof).
Could there be depths in the word of God that you have have yet to grasp? Pastor John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims, asked, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word?” He did not know it perhaps then that the new light would be the basis for a new form of government that allows for maximum freedom in man’s fallen condition, one of checks and balances. He might have had some idea of the great missionary movement, however. After all, the Pilgrims clearly stated in their Mayflower Compact that they were here to advance the cause of Christ, and that they were willing to be the stepping stones for others to advance the cause of Christ (which is exactly what their descendants became) as (if memory serves correctly) Adoniram Judson’s father (I think) served as a pastor in Plymouth. Judson, you know of course.
I had a friend one time who threw it up to me, saying, “If you can, name one instance of a woman being identified as a leader of the people!” The answer is found in Micah 6:4, “I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.” Now add to that the prophetesses of the Old and New Testaments along with God’s word to Abraham to do what Sarah said about Hagar, and along with Paul’s naming of Euodias and Syntyche as fellow laborers with him in the Gospel (Phils.4:2,3) seen in the light of that day and time and how women were repressed, to say the least, any explanations of the supposedly clear statement in I Tim.2 must drawn with great care. Add also the fact that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection at a time when their testimony was not considerd admissable in a court of law and the fact that it is one ofthe arguments for the genuineness of the Gospel accounts and you have the seed bed for a different view of the role of wmen in line. And, mind you, I haven’t even yet referred to Gals.3:28 which cuts the ground out from under the assertion of the hierarchical order among God’s people. One noted female among conservative Southern Baptists actually made a statement of approval of the hierarchical notion, never realizing, I suppose, that she was touting the horn of old Medieval Rome. Some of our eldership teachings of the resurgence are really arguments borrowed, I fear, from the presbyterian form of church government whereas the term ekklesia actually presupposes every member equally free and with the right to participate in the governmental activities of the church just like the citizens of a greek city state ekklesia like Athens, Corinth, or Ephesus. Then, of course, men only were members of the greek city state ekklesias, but not so even then of the Christian ekklesias. The women were members and had the right to take part, and the fact that Paul eferred to two women as his fellow labourers in the ministry along with Clement and others hints at a liberty and equality one would expect in the family of God. Surely our Lord is greater and better and kinder and even more thougtful and compassionate tan my mother. My oldest half sister who suffered from birth injuries and a border line intelligence once said to our mother, “You must love Jim, Joy, and Sarah more than, because they are so much smarter than me.” To which our mother wisely and lovingly replied, “I don’t know but what I love you more, because you try so darned hard.” In the Bible when it comes to judging, the Apostle Paul declared. I Cors.6:4, “set them to judge who are the least esteemed in the church.” That statement alone should be enough to overturn this growing idea of hierarchicalism among us. Women being the least esteemed could also be appointed judges???? I could continue, but it seems obvious that a clear statement must be taken in context with all other clear statements as well as the enigmatic ones, even the puzzling ones that we don’t understand and which seem so painfully contradictory to our favored beliefs.
It gets me that of the Bible believers, one, who claims to believe it and visits his wrath upon the heads of those with whom he disagrees, should use his space for blasphemy. The Lord surely knew what He was doing , when He reserved his sternest denunciations for the Bible believing Pharisees, the whited-sepulchers. After all, they were quite as active in his crucifixion as were the unbelieving Sadducees My heart is revulsed by the use of a vulgar spelling for the word, “God.” It is time that the editors closed this thread down. If civil tones cannot be used in blogging, then by all means let us use none. My aim is to win the moderates to the truth of Holy Scripture, but how can any on win when an advocate actually contradicts wath clms to believe by blasphemy?
correction to last line, “what he claims to beluieve with blasphemy.”
Comments on this entry are closed.