We hear, about seven and a half months before the event, that Albert Mohler is willing to be nominated for SBC president. It’s a little early for this but here we are.
May I guess that it’s not Calvinism that will define his candidacy nor the discussion before, during, and if he’s elected, after the convention. It will be that most prickly matter in Southern Baptist life these days, complementarianism.
‘Ask Al anything’ is my shorthand of the title of the tour by our leading intellectual and flagship seminary president. I appreciate that he does this. I also appreciate that some questions cannot be answered in simple, short, succinct sound bites.
The question was “what are your thoughts on women preaching to the gathered church? Is there room for this in the Baptist Faith and Message?”
There’s a long answer, about 13 minutes given below. I’m not going to transcribe it. You can listen.
Executive summary of the answer: No. Women cannot preach to the gathered assembly nor at anything that looks like a gathered church. I suppose we should expect that to be the standard. According to Mohler, the office of pastor/elder is the function, and vice versa; hence, no women of any ordination status preaching or teaching.
There’s a good bit more. Check it out.
I suppose this means Lottie, Annie, Beth, Bertha and any other of the female persuasion should ever stand in front of the gathered assembly and do anything that looks like preaching or teaching. Mohler did give the green light to women reading scripture and praying, so there’s that.
The question is how aggressive will associations, state conventions, and the national SBC be on this? Will they move to exclude churches that have women preaching or teaching to anything that looks like the gathered assembly, or, will action be reserved for the office itself?
Gonna be an interesting six months.
I have said this before (referencing this very answer)… And I continue to stand by it… Mohler is *exactly* right on the subject.
Among other gems:
Mohler says here Regarding the office/function of elder: It is not a legitimate argument within Baptist complementarianism to attempt to separate the function from the office. More bluntly he says “The office is the function and the function is the office”.
He also asserts that however one might identify themselves… One cannot be a complementarian, (as originally defined) and believe or affirm that a woman should preach to the gather church on the Lord‘s day. He’s right there too.
Give me the time mark on that last sentence. I don’t think he said that. Maybe.
He did assert it. If you notice I did not put it in quotes because it is a paraphrase of what he said shortly after “ The office is the function, and the function is the office.“ Go back and watch the video you linked If you don’t believe me.
To humor you start
about the 330 mark and go to the 745 mark where he is speaking to the question of women preaching to the gathered church i will put this in quotes: “… If complementarian means anything it has to mean that“. (That being only biblically qualified men performing that function)
I think my paraphrase/summary is accurate.
I got that. It’s in the op. It was your last sentence I was asking about.
“He’s right there too”
That last sentence means I think he is correct. 😉
Seriously, he speaks about how there tends to be re-defininition of terms over time and asserts That those saying that a woman can/should preach to the gather church are redefining complementarianism as it has been traditionally understood. My last sentence is an attempt to encapsulate that assertion.
This: “One cannot be a complementarian, (as originally defined) and believe or affirm that a woman should preach to the gather church on the Lord‘s day. ”
My question was did he say this? Not sure he did. If he was this narrow on the def then it’s a campaign issue from now until June.
I think its clear from the video you linked that he does go to that definition and That definition is in keeping with what complementarian actually means.
He asserted it. I told you that sentence was a summation of what he said in the timeframe I delineated above – I even included a direct quote from the timeframe that supports my take away.
http://www.bpnews.net/22161/many-evangelicals-unwittingly-live-as-feminists-moore-says
I agree , if Mohler is nominated similar viewpoints of SBC leaders like Dr. Moore will be brought up for review and discussion as the path the SBC is on will be at stake. Does Dr. Mohler agree with this 14 year old article by Dr. Moore or has it been modified. Dr. Mohler and most SBC in leadership are proponents a patriarchy point of view. How this will be addressed with the current climate of the SBC will be interesting but it will be a major issue that cannot be ignored. My guess is there will be modification by Dr. Mohler in his stance and the Ethics part of the ERLC will have to render a decision on the issue. I think this is a generational divide and it will be a revealing vote , that does need to happen.
Believe Al is doubling down on this.
Why shouldn’t he? After all It is the biblical, complementarian, and long held Baptist belief.
Dave Cline said it so that settles it.
May it be so in all the land!
Thanks, Debbie!!!
“How aggressive will associations, state conventions, and the national convention be about this?”
You’ve asked the wrong question. It’s going to be the other way around.
Sometimes the most dangerous place in the world to be is between an evangelical and a TV camera.
Between the overt insults, insulting tweets directed at no one and everyone at the same time (with no clarifications following, even after polite requests “What did you mean when you tweeted …”), and coordinated articles by various Big Eva parachurch organizations, the room for complementarians to stand on when it’s all over will be an ice flow the size of a lazyboy recliner.
Mohler gets a pass because he’s Mohler. People won’t go back at him, and as you have noted, Mohler will be thoughtful. But it will be open season on anyone but Mohler.
You all know my opinion.
I think that “quality” should be evangelicals’ biggest concern. We need less Hee Haw and more thoughtful programming. Less blatant sucking up to whatever the trend is and more real conviction.
Does anyone think if Lottie Moon or Elisabeth Elliott came back to life and addressed the Convention that anyone would care? Of course not. But of course they wouldn’t be bragging about it on social media, glomming on to the sexual abuse media attention, or talking about glass ceilings. And they wouldn’t be hawking stuff or themselves and become multimillionaires in the process.
Or would anyone object to Rosaria Butterfield speaking at the SBC? No. She’d be loved. I’d want her hired at any seminary or in any spot we have at any of our agencies, and I don’t know anyone in the SBC who would object. But Ms. Butterfield is a true scholar, has lived through what she talks about, and hasn’t ever, ever done anything confusing or counterproductive.
The reason people object is often not the stated reason. It can be a larger concern. Or it can be a lack of trust.
An emphasis on quality within the bounds of our confession is the remedy.
Not debating fine points.
@ Louis: You honestly think the main or only reason any woman tweets or blogs against sexism and sexual abuse or sexual abuse cover-ups by Christians, including Southern Baptists, is for money or attention? You’re part of the problem.
And I sure don’t regret dumping the sexist stench that is complementarianism years ago.
“And I sure don’t regret dumping the sexist stench that is complementarianism years ago.”
Daisy, While I disagree with your statement, and reject the characterizations you make, I do respect that you’re not trying to to redefine complementarianism and still claim the moniker.
No. I don’t believe that.
It will only be an issue next year if and when a candidate of an opposing view arises. The only instance I could see of that happening is an intentional candidacy to push this issue. Someone may nominate Beth. I certainly hope not. I believe Dr. Mohler’s position is correct and the overwhelming position of the SBC. Any exceptions who would make this an issue would likely meet the same fate as Ken Hemphill.
It always amazes me those who do not know how many or who are going to the Convention yet know what the overwhelming position of the “Convention” which only meets once a year, and has different people attending each year along with the same. Must be a spiritual gift or something.. I bet on the or something. It was the same prediction given about ousting Paige Patterson and that supposed “overwhelming position concerning Paige not being ousted were wrong along with the “overwhelming position” on sexual abuse in our churches. Just reminding.
Debbie, it’s “nearly” a far gone conclusion because the one’s who would have a differing opinion probably won’t go to the convention. And if a whisper of a counter-movement were to be floated, the tried and true would be bussed in to vote “their conscience” on the “important” matters.
Well, we’ll just wait and see, but first you need a candidate who opposes Mohler’s position. Who are you putting up to run against him?
I wouldn’t say “overwhelming,” at least with regard to whether or not a woman can preach on the Lord’s day. There aren’t many Southern Baptists who would agree with calling a female pastor, and that wouldn’t fly in the convention gathering at all. But there are Southern Baptist churches that have female pastors who have not incurred the wrath of an association or state convention. I can’t imagine that the issue of whether a woman can preach in a pulpit on the Lord’s day would become a hill on which to die for the SBC. Disagreeing with that position is one thing, insisting that everyone in the room accept that position would create a controversy with no good result.
I agree with everything Dr. Mohler says here. As has been pointed out, he stands of firm Biblical ground and sound doctrine.
And I agree that women preaching will continue to be a major issue in the SBC. If fact, I’ll go so far as to predict it will cause another major fracturing of the SBC.
Should the SBC soften it’s stance churches like the one I serve will leave the SBC. Should they strengthen their position and tighten down on women preaching, churches will leave.
My guess is the Convention will continue to hold it’s “every church is on its own” autonomy position, but sooner or later this issue will come to a head.
I applaud men and women who biblically stand firmly against women preaching in this day in which we find ourselves pressured by the left to abandon the Word of God in favor of the culture.
This isn’t a generational issue, it’s a sin issue.
It is not sin issue DE. To make things a sin issue that the Bible doesn’t is wrong. Could even be a sin?
You’re obviously reading a different Bible than I.
Same Bible, different lens.
Now Debbie – Here you go to preaching.
Keep it up but please don’t take that pastorate. 😉
I do wonder if those who believe a woman is to stay away from the pulpit have no sin.
Let’s lay our stones down, guys.
There are good people who, based on sound and consistent interpretation, have drawn different conclusions on what the Bible does/does not teach regarding women in ministry. Please reconsider labeling those folks you disagree with as “sinners”. I have issues with the practice of infant baptism but would never condemn someone for the practice. Should W.A. Criswell have been disqualified from ministry for allowing a woman (his wife) to teach a mixed class? I applaud men and women who biblically stand for women preaching.
As I said, there will be a major split in the SBC over this issue. While you’re applauding those who support women preaching I will biblically denounce them. It’s a sin.
This very second I commit to taking this moment to get on my knees and pray for Mr. Mohler and to set a daily reminder on my phone to pray very specifically for him in particular, and for the SBC as well more generally.
There’s a good bit worth ruminating over that Mohler said in these 13 minutes. I would expect him to double and triple down on the comp stuff.
He drops the Danvers Statement, as if that should be seen as normative and controlling for Southern Baptists. All these add-ons to the BFM are problematic IMO.
He says that “when women will, men won’t” as if that is axiomatic. Maybe he’s got research on this, after all he’s an academic. The meaning is that if women preach (in any setting, with any office, or with none) then men will not preach. Strange view of men, that they would be more faithful if only women would (I have to say it) go home. He might expand on that to clarify. As a man, I don’t feel all that masculine and empowered in that first-in-creation order manner if it is implied that my faithfulness is diminished by women serving in roles the patriarchy disapproves of.
The CMBW is trying to reinvent itself, maybe polish it’s image. Let’s see if this helps.
I don’t know if I’d vote for Al or not but I’m not planning to attend the convention next year anyway.
This is rich, real, and relevant…let’s see where it goes.
Well, my friend William – if my memory serves me correctly, you have stated in previous years that you were not planning to attend… And then you did. 😉
See you in Orlando. 😉
Yeah, we’ll see. I’m retired and can make my own schedule. Not looking at spending the money though.
LOL. Gotcha. 😉 I do enjoy seeing and talking with you though!
“When women will, men won’t.” Based on Baptist history, perhaps a more accurate statement would be “when men won’t, women will.”
I am am thoroughly convinced that Mr. Mohler is a legalist in the tradition of the Judaisers. Every tension must be eliminated and applied as broadly as possible. Practice must be governed from initial correct communication to ongoing correct monitoring by decree. Being correct is the greatest of all virtues and the Christian walk is one of walking to become more correct rather than one of becoming more correct by walking IN. He seems to be tormented by the same cognitive dissonance that drove Luther and others.
This underlying issue should not framed as an opportunity to destroy perceived social/religious patriarchy – instead, imo, as a test of whether we will steadfastly hold Biblical instruction as authoritative In the midst of contrary cultural pulls.
I certainly am a fan of Dr. Mohler’s, he’s a good statesman, and leader. However, I want an SBC president who is able to keep the main thing the main thing: SBs expanding God’s Kingdom together. I don’t want a year or two of the SBC prez getting into the weeds regarding complementarianism or Calvinism. If Mohler can keep all of our passions on our cooperative mission efforts, he has my vote.
Yeah, I agree with all that – but at the same time – What if people start to pronounce this a gospel issue…. … ah, never-mind. 🙂
I understand that it is usually an elder/pastor who gives the sermon on Sunday mornings, but not all elders need to give sermons (See 1 Timothy 5). And so it makes no sense to me to say that the role of preaching is identified with the office of elder. If it is possible to be an elder without preaching, then I can not see how you can contort yourself to say that preaching/speaking is somehow equivalent to taking on the office of elder. Can anyone justify a stance that says all sermons must be given by elders? I do not see this anywhere in the Bible.
I don’t see that the Sunday morning sermon is found in scripture at all. There is preaching and teaching, both mentioned as work of the elders. I wonder how consistent SBC churches are in giving them “double honor” or whatever that means. But then, I haven’t been in many churches lately that require women to wear a head covering in order to pray, or that require them to leave their jewelry at the door, both of which are Biblical instructions. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen the men in an SBC congregation lifting up holy hands to the Lord. If you’re going to be literal in complementarianism, then be consistent elsewhere.
I’ve looked at the BFM comparison chart several times for one reason or another. Given what sounded more like Mr. Mohler’s spin than the actual wording, I took another look. I didn’t find the term complementarian, but I did find that we were liberated with regard to The Lord’s Day.
In the BFM 2000.
Having had a measure of both theological education and Baptist polity in coursework I had at two different SBC-related institutions of higher learning, including one Seminary, it is my understanding that local church autonomy means it is not the SBC’s responsibility to set doctrinal parameters for the churches. The BFM applies to entities who are direct recipients of CP money distributed by the executive committee, mainly the EC itself, the seminaries, the mission boards, the ERLC, Lifeway, and the annuity board. I don’t see that the SBC President’s perspective makes a whole lot of difference in that regard. Basically, he is the officer who presides as convention meetings, attends the Exec Committee meetings, appoints one committee and is the chief spokesperson for the convention during his term. I don’t think Dr. Mohler’s election will make the SBC more or less Calvinist, or more or less complementarian than it already is. Is there someone else whose name is coming to the forefront? Seems like this would be a consensus choice.
I honestly have no ‘dog in this fight’, as I have no qualms about worshipping within or without an SBC affiliated assembly. Volatile political ‘third rails’ are as immutable as death & taxes, I am perhaps naively unconvinced that any of these pop culture, ‘flavor-of-the-month’ swaying reeds represent the correct ‘hills to die on’.
My perspective here is much the same, regarding the appearance of opinion pieces inspiring civil debate attempting to gauge potential limits for continued support of president Trump, in light of highly partisan mainstream media allegations.
Truly no personal agenda or professional axe to grind regarding the person of A.M. I do find it difficult to reconcile what I observed and heard during the intensely awkward ShepCon SJW discussion, contrasted against the conflicting, tell-tale videos chronicling several years of ‘platforming’ Liberation Theology proponents at SBTS, …now suddenly disappeared.
Back to my rhetorical question; ‘which are the correct hills to die on?’ On this forum I witnessed some understandably heated differences of opinion by attacking/justifying the relative morality of a mere mortal whom gained sufficient favor to suit the collective demand of a fickle people, to “give us a king” (like the pagan nations).
Sentiments expressed in effect: “We are neither engaged in ordaining, nor conducting a pastoral search, Pauline epistles have nothing to say on suitability for political office!” Counterpoint, routinely cited infidelity, vulgar misogynistic behavior arrogant insulting communication and the plea to disassociate the issue of abortion/infanticide, from a historically non-negotiable plank of a party platform.
That said, what standard is appropriate for the church to employ when electing a high visibility public figure whom while not specifically functioning as overseer/deacon, nonetheless, bears the solemn responsibility to be an image bearer representing the protestant faith, the Law and the Gospel to an unregenerate world?
To what degree (if any) is it permissible to allow entangling oneself in these volatile political ‘third rails‘, constantly checking the pop-cultural weather report, to strategically shift the sails into the new prevailing wind direction?
Perhaps I’m grossly oversimplifying things, but I presently cannot find a way to set the limbo bar that low, while simultaneously convincing myself that such duties or activities are remotely Christ-like.
Thoughts?
As to the question of what issues raise to the level “third rail electrocution” I think Mohler’s “theological triage” is helpful. In a similar vein, Dr. Sawyer of Western Seminary wrote a few papers on “hierarchy of doctrines” dealing with the idea that all theological bullet points do not rise to first level issues.
[1] Baptism of infants; [2] the exact meaning, if any, of ordination; and [3] complementarianism vs. egalitarianism are examples of lower-level debates. People should not get worked up one way or the other over this stuff. Baptists should stay focused on the bigger picture. I’d say the idea of the sanctity of life is an order of magnitude of any of these tertiary issues.
Mohler would be an excellent choice for SBC president. He knows what is important and what is not. Dr. Mohler would not take the bait and get into petty fight — especially if its only likely outcome is to increasing the polarization amongst various camps in the SBC.