I wrote a post a few days ago in which I argued that the path forward in the SBC on the “complementarianism brouhaha” was fairly simple.
- We adhere to our common confession, the BF&M 2000 which details that the pastoral role be reserved for men and that there is a differentiation of roles in marriage.
- We adhere to our long-held principle of local church autonomy for the rest. As long as a church is faithful to the BF&M 2000, we allow the local church to decide precisely what role women can have in their local church.
- One church can fence the pulpit from women completely and another can allow the occasional exception, for reasons it deems fitting.
- One church can have women completely silent in all aspects of worship and another can allow women full participation up to the limit of the pastoral role.
- Women (and men) can decide what churches they want to be part of, based on their beliefs.
- We can continue our discussions of the topic expositionally and exegetically, while allowing freedom to others to hold different views.
Dr. Tom Schreiner of Southern Seminary posted a thread that dealt with this topic deftly – stating his views forcefully and showing respect for those who disagree.
I am going to do a thread relating to women in ministry with some random thoughts. Let me say in advance that I wish I had time to engage on twitter with comments and responses. But I don’t have time to do that. Sorry!
— Tom Schreiner (@DrTomSchreiner) June 3, 2019
Denny Burk has written an article that puts the Schreiner thread together into essay form and interacts with it. It carries that same irenic spirit. He asks whether “broad and narrow complementarians” can coexist in the SBC.
That is my question.
I am in an odd position. My convictions on the issue of women in ministry lean to the right but I also think this is not a fundamental issue, not something we should divide over and certainly not something over which we should question the biblical fidelity of others. The epithets of egalitarian, liberal, and misogynist have been thrown around with far too great a frequency. In general, Southern Baptists should be ashamed of our conduct on this issue – on all sides of the conflict.
The reaction here to my post was somewhat predictable. There were kind comments of agreement but there were others who logged on to say that “if complementarianism means anything, it has to mean this or that.” Once commenter insisted that even though the BF&M does not preclude a woman speaking from a pulpit periodically, his interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 is so authoritative that his version of complementarianism was the only acceptable one under our confession. As the discussion wore on, I began to ponder what Denny Burk asked.
So, here’s my question:
What do you who hold “hard” positions on complementarianism want to happen in the SBC?
- Are you willing to coexist in the SBC with those who hold softer positions?
- Are you demanding that the SBC encode the harder view as its official position?
- Will you coexist with softer views as long as those people do not occupy positions of power?
I get that you think your view is correct. I think my view is correct. Beth Moore thinks her view is biblical as does Dwight McKissic and the rest of us. The question is simple. What do you want the SBC to do with those who hold other views?
Because if you are willing to coexist with them, then a lot of this discussion seems like it is unnecessary.
I am not interested here in another discussion of which view is right. All I am interested in is this question: what do you want the SBC to do about it? And I recognize that a similar question could be asked of some of the more strident members of the “soft complementarian” contingent, who seem to cast anyone who advocates stronger positions as misogynistic woman-haters. Are they willing to coexist? But let’s leave that for another time.
- What do you want to do, those of you who believe a woman should never stand behind a pulpit, with churches who had a woman preach?
- What do you want to do with churches that allow women to teach mixed Sunday School classes?
Due to my schedule, I do not intend to engage much on this post. I will, however, delete comments that are not on point. Stick to the topic!
Being a southern Baptist and agreeing with the BFM as a point of cooperation, as long as a church doesn’t transgress the BFM on this I have no problem. However if a church does transgress then a time for rectifying the situation should be given or the church is declined by the convention as a member church.
as TS stated it
“. I thank God for evangelical egalitarians! And I thank God for complementarians who I think are slipping a bit. Still, what we do in churches is important, and I don’t want to say it doesn’t matter. It does matter, and I am concerned about the next generation. But we can love those who disagree and rejoice that we believe in the same gospel.”
However egaltarian is NOT an accepted view….
Here is Denny Burk’s footnote explaining “broad” and “narrow”: “”Narrow Complementarianism” teaches that headship applies narrowly to ordination and to marriage. “Broad Complementarianism” teaches that headship reflects a comprehensive set of differences between male and female that have broad implications for our lives together in the church, in the home, and in society at large.”
It’s confusing. I think that when you ask above, “What do you who hold “narrow” or “hard” positions on complementarianism want to happen in the SBC?” you mean to ask it of “broad” complementarians, not “narrow.”
Broad = hard,
Narrow = soft
Did a quick edit. I only read the part of the post that pertained to coexistence. Didn’t read it all.
Thanks.
It’s unnecessarily confusing to equate “broad” with “hard” or “strict” complementarianism. I don’t know if the terms were flipped from what seems logical to me or if they have a body of scholarly work behind them. The CMBW has been in a ‘spin’ mode from the get-go on this.
Another topic for another time, I suppose.
This is not meant to be critical of you and your two articles (nor of myself for the one article) on C/E, but the news next week will be about sex abuse, not the fine points of C/E, about sex abusers being able to continue as pastor and staff in SBC churches, not about women being pastors in SBC churches. The most press coverage will be of the forsuchatimeasthis rally on Monday afternoon and the stories of abused women not about how men, almost all SBC clergy, arguing about what hard/soft/narrow/broad/strict complementarianism means.
This is not lost on those in the broader audience for SBC things.
I agree that abuse will be our key issue next week, but I would like to hear from those who have argued so forcefully for harder views how they want to handle my question.
I don’t understand the necessary linkage between “hard” complementarianism and sex abuse… Would you please explain it?
I am not aware of one.
Thank you. I am very glad I misunderstood your comment – and I’m sorry i did so.
Thanks for editing your comment above to clarify.
Dave C: I think that William was saying that the sex abuse scandal is and should be the most important topic not this. Even more reports from the Houston Chronicle are coming out.
Yep
…not exactly, DK. I’m saying that it will be the big item next week. In a way no contributor here can make any topic the most important. Readers and commenters do that. You may have noticed that the sex abuse scandal gets much less reaction but there will be plenty of material here on that. Stay tuned.
We can manage more than one subject at a time.
I misunderstood a comment by Dave – he edited his post to clarify and i have apologized for any confusion I caused when I misunderstood his original comment.
Its all good now.
I am not willing to engage in cooperative church planting with those who teach that women should be able to preach in church, on Sunday, to mixed audiences (I think that is all the qualifiers). I assumed that the BFM 2000 Article VI meant the same. I am also unwilling to fund seminaries that would teach that women ought to preach (in church, on Sunday, to mixed audiences). Finally, I am unwilling to send missionaries to plant churches that teach that women ought to preach (…). As such, this is an issue that I think requires critical evaluation for our convention.
That said, I love and pray for churches that teach this, I just call them egalitarian. I still think they are Christian, but we have a different view of what a church is so church planting, seminary education, and missions, are not areas I think we can cooperate in.
Join the discussion…Well said Brother Adam. I believe it is hypocritical to fund anything with The Lord’s money that contradicts basic scriptural doctrine. ie ordination of women pastors. To compromise is to depart from scripture.
Peace.
Here is where semantics plays a part. Adam said, “
I am not willing to engage in cooperative church planting with those who teach that women should be able to preach in church, on Sunday, to mixed audiences (I think that is all the qualifiers).“ You said ordination. I agree that complementarianism is fundamentally opposed to women Pastors. But a woman speaking on Mother’s Day, a women’s ministry emphasis Sunday, or other special occasion in not necessarily a reflection of support for female pastors. Here lies the problem!
Dave — You can delete my comment if you choose because I am not sure if I am answering the question the way you want. However, and this is the point that I was trying to make with my questions on your other post to Michael White. The fluidity of when does a boy become a man is not solvable readily and ergo instructing a grown woman to submit to a 13 year old or even a 18 year old in a church setting (and I have seen this happen) is problematic. Consequently, these terms ultimately are man-made and not Scriptural. Is there a time for those on the “Complementarian” position to come together and determine what is Scriptural and not just preferential?
Dr. Downey, I am not disagreeing with anything you said just making a request. If you hear of such a meeting please let me know I want to be there. That should be a humdinger!!! Blessings
Historical Fact – every group, denomination, whatever that has allowed women preachers has gone off the deep end of orthodoxy. The landscape if the past 25 years is littered with the corpse of what was once a gospel entity. This is an undeniable FACT!
Not to start an argument, but to just out of curiosity here. Is that the only correlation? Women preaching = gone off the deep end? As in that is the only reason they went off the deep end?
Do you classify the Assemblies of God as “off the deep end of orthodoxy?”
And again, Tom, I asked that we NOT argue the issue here. My question is whether you are willing to coexist with those who hold a different view or whether you think the BF&M should be changed to codify hard complementarianism?
Hi Tom!
Can I tell you another fact? The more fire trucks that are sent to a fire, typically means a bigger fire. Those two things are positively correlated. So I suppose fire trucks cause worse fires, right?
Or perhaps not.
Did you know that some of the supposedly best hospitals actually have worse survival rates? Perhaps they are not actually the best.
Or perhaps not.
RE: fire trucks, obviously more fire trucks are dispensed to a worse fire.
RE: hospitals, the condition of a patient is an underlying factor. More serious health issues are sent to the better hospitals.
Maybe there is some confounding factor that is underlying your supposed fact. Do the denominations you are referring to hold that the Bible is inerrant and infallible Word of God? Perhaps the issue isn’t that they permit women preachers but that they don’t hold to other beliefs.
Kim,
You are right.
Simply having a woman preach once in a while at a few churches does not cause the denomination to ge belly up liberal.
Rather, when churces go belly up liberal or are in the process of doing so, they do ignore the Word as infallible and good for right doctrine. And one of the ways they do this is by throwing off those patriarchial shackles of men only preaching and pastoring and leading.
In other words its not the cause of the problem, but it can be an indicator of one. Or of one gaining a foothold.
And though I dont know Tom, and cant speak for him, I think that he loves the SBC and just doesnt want it to go belly up liberal.
That you comment here probably means you love the SBC as well.
Blessings.
I did not state nor imply ANYTHING about Causality. You read that into my post. I simply stated a historic fact. Thank You for your response.
I would say you certainly implied it. It is ok if that is your thought. Again, I think that can play a role, but it isn’t the main role. You didn’t say “The reason they’ve gone off the deep end is because they allow women preachers!” But you also gave no other characteristics as to why they have, so you implied, which led us to believe, that maybe that was your thought. That all I am saying.
Blessings, Tom.
Christopher, Re. “led us”…I am part of the “us” and i did not understand that. Tom (whom I wouldn’t know if he hit me upside the head with a raw chicken leg) simply state a fact that is basically correct but with exceptions as Dave pointed out. Usually “liberal” churches will include women preachers among the many other beliefs that deny the inerrancy of the word
Maybe I should’ve said “led me”. I cannot nor do I ever want to speak for anyone else.
This all reminds me of the debate about open vs. closed communion. There is wide open, pretty open, close, pretty much closed and don’t even think about it. Open and closed were not really exact terms. Seems like this is the same.
Within limits, the analogy is apt
Yes Allen,,,BTW how many camels can stand on the head of a needle in eternity.
Is there anybody out there in cyber land besides me who thinks we have beaten this horse enough for one week. Lets move to Calvinism just for variety
Do you mean by “move”, adopt?
Like every winter in Ohio, I say, “I’d like to move to Florida.”
Michael whatever whenever how ever. We have a nation badly fractured, a world going to hell, a denomination badly declining and we are spending our time on a discussion trying to define terms that are not scriptural in subject that was discussed and not solved for decades before I was born, and a conclusion should it come that will not advance the Kingdom one bit.
1 – Draw a clear definable line (hard or soft) and… live with it.
If the convention declines as a result… live with it.
2 – Leave it as it is and let the debate happen in cyber space until it dies a natural death… except for the who make their own C/E blogs to keep it alive in their little world.
If the convention declines as a result… live with it.
3 – Simply trust God and quit telling every other church which you do not belong to to do things your way.
If the convention declines as a result… live with it.
Solved. I think I actually answered the question.
Great thinking Jon
To answer Dave’s question.
I wish all SBC churches were on the hard side even as they find the many numerous ways women can and do enhance church life.
But I am not for forcing my view on any other congregation.
I am SBC because the SBC church in my neighborhood was most compatible with my overall understandings.
I appreciate the SBC for the IMB and the chances it gives us to both contribute to missions monetarily and to participate in other ways. This issue is not one to break cooperation over except if asked personally to support egalitarian chuches or their plants.
Which will probably not happen.
But in thinking the Bible is clear on the matter, I woud also be remiss to not warn that when we dont do things God’s way, we may not receive His blessings. But then again, He’s merciful, so I thank Him for that.
Well, as we all know, there is nothing we can “do” to churches that have a penchant for lady-preachers. They are autonomous, and have not technically transgressed the BF&M…technically…
Such churches have found a loophole and are exploiting said loophole.
Not to worry. Only a matter of time until some of them get themselves a lady-pastor. (It is not as if we’ve never seen this song and dance before).
Then will come the winnowing. Fence-straddlers will have to come down on one side or the other. That will be interesting to watch.
In the meantime, dear sisters in Christ are being led to believe they can assume an authority that will only crush them. They were not designed for such. Shame and reckoning on the men who are not protecting them.
Let the caterwauling commence…
Randall – Do you really think churches were even looking for a loophole? Exploiting? I think churches do what they want. Most have never read the BF&M 2K. If they did, it was way back when.
I would agree with you that “some” (very few of those who might let a woman speak) will find a woman pastor. Those probably don’t consider themselves SB’s anyway.
Is this really an argument about women? Isn’t it a time to call for men to rise up? Wimpy men filling the pews are a greater danger than the SBC churches being filled with woman speakers.
Solution – Duke it out with the men in the SBC, not the women. Let those who want women silent fight those men who are letting them talk. Lift the men and stop crushing the women.
Some of the most intellectual theologians we have in our churches are women. Few are men.
I bet, with over 44000 churches, there just might be women pastors. There certainy were when Al Mohler started as President of Southern.
And I bet, if I was a bettor that is, that many churches are run by the pastors wife.
Now Randall, you cant help those women, whoever most of them are, because well, you dont even know how many or who.
Nor can you duke it out with the men, since, well, you dont know who to duke it out with, at least for the most part.
I’m sure you love the SBC and dont want to see this great ship sink, so I advise prayer and trust. Jesus builds His church His way.
This slippery slope argument is without merit in my mind.
We DO have a clear stand against that and HAVE enforced it.
Dave, do you recall the exchange you and I had about 6 months ago on this very issue?
When I suggested that the issue of women preaching was a looming battle in the SBC and you dismissed me (rather derisively and pejoratively, as I recall)?
I bowed out then. Now we yet again find ourselves butting heads…further down the slope.
Imagine that. A slippery slope.
Dave, I am not your enemy here. In fact I think you and I are pretty close on this issue, by your own admission.
You said you are not comfortable with a woman preaching in your pulpit. I asked you if you had scriptural warrant for your concern, or is it just your personal preference. You never answered. Why?
Why all the theatrics here in trying to paint me as your antagonist? My position on this matter (and yours, I suspect) is the position historically held throughout an overwhelming majority of the SBC.
And please refrain from accusing me (again) of appealing to the majority. I hold this position for exegetical reasons, just as does Tom Schreiner.
What gives, Dave? Lots of us nobodies would genuinely like to know.
Besides, I would like to break bread with you at B’ham…without all of this unnecessary tension.
Randall, i do not accept your characterization of our exchange. you tend to paint things a certain way. I do not think your analysis is accurate at all.
The SBC does not have a women-as- preachers problem.
The # of churches that had a woman address the church on Mother’s Day is minuscule. All of those churches had male pastors. All operate within the boundaries of the BF&M.
So, i remain convinced this is a tempest in a teapot and not a real crisis.
Very well Dave. I’ll not trouble you further at this time. I’m sure we’ll butt heads again a little further down the slope.
Dave…absolutely correct
Count me as someone for whom the “teach” in “teach or usurp authority” signifies not having women in the pulpit giving sermons ever.
Now, what do I want the SBC to do about it?
Contrary to the way it may look sometimes, it is not my full-time job and calling to be a Southern Baptist. I feel free to say, write, and think things that are in no way whatsoever a gestating motion or resolution. So, here’s what I want:
1. I’d like to be able to talk about the Bible and give honestly my understanding of it without being called a knuckle-dragging misogynist.
2. I’d like to teach my own church well about this subject and these passages.
3. I’d like to persuade others of the exegetical soundness of my position or have them persuade me of the exegetical soundness of theirs.
4. If our family of churches were to reach consensus on this matter and codify it in the direction of my views, I’d be fine with that. Putting it in the BF&M won’t achieve consensus, but achieving consensus might wind up putting it into our statement of faith, I guess.
Just curious: is there anyone out there who holds to a view on this they personally don’t like. As in, does anyone believe in hard comp who personally wouldn’t mind having a woman speak but they think the Bible goes against their personal preference. Or are any soft comps out there who really wish you could ban women speaking but the Bible goes against that.
My guess is your view (for most people) lines up with your personal preference. Now, having said that, does your toleration of the other side (or lack thereof) stem from Scripture or does it line up more with your personal preference. This is a good question to ponder.
Full disclosure: I am a soft comp who would be egalitarian by personal preference but has to view soft comp as more Biblically accurate.
Scott
I have the same view as you. I would be a full egalitarian however I believe that Scripture teaches that the Pastor/Elder is to be male and would not be comfortable in a church with a female pastor. I have become acquainted with and heard the female pastor of the 1st UMC pastor of our town speak on occasion and found her to be solid, although I would not be a member of her church for theological reasons.
Off topic, but our church is considering moving to an Elder led as opposed to a single Elder (our pastor), and committees. One of my concerns is that by doing so we will be further limiting the women’s voices in our church when I think we need to be bringing more women’s voices to the front.
Eric I would encourage you to move slowly to elder leadership, teach much! I have also make a planning committee for carrying out the practical aspect of the ministry which includes many of the women leaders of the church. They have helped us with planning and execution of ministry events and have done much better than the elders who are the pastors.
Dr. Barber..A hearty “Amen” to all your points. However it seems that #2 is the most germane First because this is the way it SHOULD be and second, this is the way it WILL be.
Thanks, Dave. In my opinion, there are two layers to this thing. First, there is the BF&M 2000 layer. The question on this layer becomes: “Are churches that allow women to preach on Sundays and/or teach men violating the BF&M 2000 specifically?” The answer to this would probably be “no.” They have the freedom to choose to allow this and still be in good standing with the SBC. The secondary layer has to do with whether it is okay for those of us who feel that allowing a woman to preach to the entire congregation and/or teach men goes against the spirit of the BF&M (or more specifically 1 Timothy 2) to voice that opinion. Of course, this should be done politely and respectfully. Is it okay to give voice if you are concerned about what the next steps might be in this area of ecclesiology if no one speaks out? I think the answer is “yes.” I believe that Owen Strachan, Albert Mohler, Bart Barber, and many others have done so. This issue was one of a handful of huge flash points in the Conservative Resurgence. It is relevant. In no way is this view anti-woman. This type of movement rarely expands to the edge of Biblical orthodoxy and then stops. Many of us feel that if no one voices polite opposition, the movement to place women in preaching situations will grow past its current status. Mrs. Moore has preached on Sunday morning at least twice in the past month. There is a growing call for her to be nominated as the next president of the SBC. If she were elected, I can’t help but think she will receive enough invitations to result in her preaching all over the convention. If you read her Twitter threads, there is an avalanche of women responding who preach and there appear to be no corrections or attempt at tempering given by Mrs. Moore (I understand why she would not, since she agrees with it; I am only pointing this out as there is no sense of any “Mother’s Day only” feel to the discussion). So, it is not that I can’t exist in an SBC in which individual churches are allowing women to preach to and/or teach men. They are autonomous. But it also seems reasonable to me for those who see it as a violation of the Scripture to politely speak… Read more »
Thank you Ronny! I agree….
Thanks!
Very well said Ronny
Thanks!
I reiterate a point I made on Dave’s first post on this topic:
“7.5 billion people on Earth. Roughly 2.5 billion identify as Christian. 105 people die every minute. Means every minute, roughly 70 people go to Hell. And SBC leaders (some on this website, some in our seminaries, and most in our churches) are tearing the peace apart because some churches allowed women to speak in the pulpit on Mother’s Day! SHAME ON YOU, AND SHAME ON US!
We have a Women’s Ministry Emphasis Sunday every year and a woman brings the message. This Sanctity of Human Life Sunday 2020, a woman I admire who has struggled with both abortion regret and drug abuse will be bringing our morning message. She will touch hearts and change lives!
Shame on us for becoming the hypocrites John the Baptist despised. Shame on us for becoming the hypocrites Jesus warned against! SHAME ON US!!!
I am a firm complementarian. I do not advocate for female Pastors or Elders, believing those are offices scripturally set aside for men. But shame on us for demeaning and degrading women. Shame on us for becoming what Jesus warned against. Shame on us for equating 25 minutes behind a podium with the call of a Pastor/Elder. Shame on us!
I won’t be at SBC19, but if I was and this were to rise as a point of contention, I believe I would leave realizing the SBC had lost her way!”
A hard question for soft complementarians: You keep citing the AoG and other similar denominations, but to my knowledge, all of the examples that you cite ordain women as pastors/elders/overseers. Can you give us an example of a denomination that features women-preachers but does not feature female elders?
Stipulation: No fair choosing any denomination that doesn’t have pastors/elders/overseers.