From our “Tempest in a Teapot” News Division, the SBC narrowly averted disaster today when a minuscule percentage of SBC churches decided to have women address their congregations on Mother’s Day. Some Twitter pundits opined that this would cause a chain reaction that would bring an imbalance to the force, align the SBC squarely with egalitarians, cause us to completely abandon any biblical moorings, and embrace women pastors immediately.
However, like Y2K and the 12 predictions of Snowmageddon that didn’t come to fruition in Sioux City this year, this seems to have been what Uncle Willie described as “much ado about nothing.”
We appear to have survived the 2019 Mother’s Day Homilicaust.
May I switch gears and be serious for a few moments?
1. This was among our more overblown brouhahas, among many overblown kerfuffles. Out of the 47,000 SBC churches, the number of churches that actually had a woman address the church was proportionally infinitesimal. This has been going on for many years among churches that are squarely complementarian.
(I am guessing that a majority of churches have taken to doing what I do – honor mothers and then continue my regular sermon series).
2. The match was lit because Beth Moore spoke to the issue and things went crazy. Those in the harsher districts of the Reformed/discernment/1689 neighborhood view her as a Jezebel and hate her with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns. They desire to destroy, demean, and degrade her obsessively and relentlessly. She tends not to back down.
3. Disagreeing with Beth Moore is perfectly okay. Presenting biblical arguments against women preaching is also perfectly fine. One need not agree with Owen Strachan’s article to admit that he at least attempted to make biblical and theological arguments. The problem was neither his article nor responses that dealt with the content of his article. We disagree on these issues.
4. Southern Baptists have settled themselves as a complementarian convention, but have not spelled out one type of complementarianism as the only acceptable one. This is a discussion we need to have, defining what is and is not acceptable within the boundaries of our denomination.
5. I am pretty conservative in my interpretations and viewpoints. Some of the other contributors here as a bit more open in their complementarianism than I am. Some may be a little stricter. I am content to be in a denomination with BOTH Beth Moore and Owen Strachan. We need not choose one view and eliminate the others.
Obviously, some disagree with that, viewing the presence of “soft” complementarianism as a threat to holiness and all things righteous.
6. While I think disagreeing with either Beth Moore or Owen Strachan is acceptable, LYING is not. It is sin and it is ungodly. I saw a Twitter discussion yesterday in which two men made absolute truth claims about Beth Moore – both of which I know to be false.
- One said authoritatively that Beth was seeking to step into the void left behind when Rachel Held Evans died. She is, this man said, seeking to become the leader of progressive evangelical circles. He even stated that she was doing this to make money. Beth Moore has so little in common with RHE. And how does this man know Beth’s heart? He’s strict and belligerent in his cessationism. Did he receive a word of knowledge?
- Another stated boldly that this whole thing was part of Beth’s design to become president of the SBC.
I have had limited interaction with Beth Moore, but follow her on Twitter. I will say that these are both false – either lies or ignorant falsehoods. I have seen nothing that makes me believe she has any desire to be president of the SBC and the idea that she’s angling to take RHE’s place on the evangelical left is ridiculous.
We cannot lie our way to truth.
7. Complementarianism is an issue we need to discuss, but the idea that a few churches having a woman speak on Mother’s Day is evidence of wholesale adoption of egalitarianism and the rejection of our historical position is a bit overwrought.
The SBC will not crumble because a few women address churches on mother’s day. But lying will hurt us. Division and cruelty will hurt us. Treating one another as we have does far more damage than a few women speaking on Mother’s Day.
8. Odd that many of those who consider themselves discerners and defenders of truth ignore the mountain of Scripture about love, unity, gentleness, honor, meekness, kindness- the fruit of the Spirit. Yes, the Bible calls us to contend for the faith, but the sheer weight of Scripture calling us to love, to unity, to building up the Body ought to show us how important that is to the Author of Scripture.
9. We need biblical discussions of issues like this, but if you want to know why the SBC is in trouble, just look at Twitter and see how we treat one another. We have problems way bigger than a few women speaking on Sunday. The lies, the vicious attacks, yes, the sin – I have to believe that bothers God a lot more than this limited Mother’s Day tradition.
10. Seeking doctrinal fidelity is a worthy goal, but the idea that Christianity is all about theological conformity and that verbal cruelty and personal attacks are justified when someone disagrees with our doctrinal positions is as contrary to the word of God as any false doctrine could be. To ignore calls to unity, to love, to walk in the fruit of the Spirit, while wielding our creeds and confessions like axes is not the way of Christ.
11. I admit that in discussions here and on Twitter and Facebook I have been anything but pristine and guiltless. I admire those people who can engage in discussions and keep their cool. I tend to get excited and the flesh rises, though I begin with the best of intentions. For my failures, I ask forgiveness to any I’ve offended.
12. If the SBC is going to turn around, it is going to take a spiritual renewal – far more than just enforcing doctrinal purity. We need spiritual discernment as much as we need theological discernment. We must care as much about our attitudes and behavior as we do about doctrinal issues.
- We cannot continue to sin against one another as we have and believe we will see the blessing of God.
- We cannot continue to bite and devour one another and expect God to build us up.
- We cannot walk in the flesh and expect the Spirit’s power to be displayed.
Complementarianism is a key issue and we need to discuss it – rationally, biblically, calmly, and lovingly. But what we’ve done this last week or so on Twitter is anything but what we should be doing.
I can’t wait to get to Africa where there’s no internet!
By the way, a friend showed me some absolutely nasty tweets from egalitarians attacking Dr. Strachan. Personal and degrading.
It isn’t just the 1689ers and such who go low.
In fact, personal attacks came from a wide circle.
If we continue to walk in sin like this we should stop wondering why God isn’t blessing us.
Thank you for this comment Dave. Dr. Strachan has been called, “sexist, a misogynistic, a bigot, and a borderline heretic based on his view of the Trinity.”
Dean: If he believes in ESS, that is misogynistic at best. Owen was called misogynistic because for one, when Beth Moore stood up for herself against his(Owen’s ) attacks, he said “she snapped , we knew it would happen.” which of course, she did not. She knew exactly what she was saying and said it well.
It was hateful on his part in my opinion and I disagree with Dave that many hateful things were said of Owen. I think most were spot on.
That is grossly unfair.
Disagreeing with a doctrine and presenting your arguments is one thing. Demonizing a man is pretty much the tactic we generally criticize.
If you don’t like it when they do it to Beth Moore don’t turn around and do it to Owen Strachan.
o
OK. I did read a few comments just now that made me cringe. Alot.
I believe we already have a good plan for going forward. It’s called the BFM. If we stick to that, we’ll be fine.
But I am not as certain as you appear to be that this may not be a harbinger of a larger disagreement.
I read Strachen’s piece. I’m not sure I agree in all respects but I thought it was fine in tone and argument.
I didn’t get why Ms. Moore was so harsh toward Strachen. Mohler opined and I think Jason Allen did as well.
Twitter is not a good format for real discussion.
But I’m not sure if we had a discussion it would help.
Moore is no RHE. Not even close.
But observing the comments on Twitter, there are many Moore followers who apparently want the culture in the SBC to change. Moore seems to bask in that. Never calls them down.
Then there’s the #metoo thing, and Moore is in the forefront of that for some reason that’s not really apparent to me.
It’s all pretty confusing to me.
I’m not that invested in the issue really.
But it is disconcerting to me that a popular Bible teacher is having a row with a prof at one of our seminaries.
Louis: Owen was wrong in what he said. He started it. Yeah I know, I know. But he did. You are now going to get a reaction when you say something like he did.
You are making much more of the “they want culture to change” than you should. And it won’t change or at least any time soon, and as for the “row” with a prof. Why? She was defending herself and I thought her words were harsh but not too harsh and they should have been harsh. To sit and take such abuse and it is abuse, is wrong. It’s not going to happen.
I think you and Dave have a wrong view of this. When women have been suppressed to go along to get along, be silent in the church as long as they have, the freedom to speak is going to be a surprise to a lot of men. 🙂
I am not interested in “but you started it.”
I was discussing the seriousness of the issue and demonstrated by the level of vitriol.
When things descend to the rhetoric you can read on Twitter, there is a problem.
Louis, did Owen Strachen call any of his followers down for the crude & hateful things they said? Just curious.
Dr. Strachan is a professor.
He’s not the boss of any movement. The idea that he’s the leader of a group or somehow giving orders is kinda nonsensical.
Who do you think was following orders for Dr. Strachan?
Louis opined “there are many Moore followers who apparently want the culture in the SBC to change. Moore seems to bask in that. Never calls them down.”
I would like to know if the same is true of Owen Strachans “followers”.
If Moore has them Dave, I’m pretty sure Owen does too, or am I way off base here?
Call me a conspiracy nut. Call me suspicious but…
1) Brouhaha over women sharing on Mother’s Day in whatever capacity….
2) Falwell, Jr. opening a can of worms over the stained glass windows and conservative credentials
Are we heading towards Conservative Regurgence II?
Nah, just the annual meeting, haha. 🙂
No we’re not headed toward a CR II.
I fear that we are headed toward undoing the CR.
Not in this generation. The guys leading things now are solid.
It’s the next generation. They never really experienced what the CR corrected. Other issues excite them. I don’t think that many are sufficiently wise is this regard.
Amy, some have never stopped fighting the CR. They never learned to unite over non-essential doctrine and cast everything as life and death.
Last year they tried to cast JD Greear as a liberal. Anyone who doesn’t vote Trump is a liberal. Those who are concerned about racism and sexual abuse are social justice warriors who threaten the gospel.
There are groups that must ID all they disagree with as the enemy.
Dave Miller & hosts, would you consider doing a series of posts on Christian communication? Or, is anyone aware of a pledge or commitment regarding Christian communication? And just curious: do any of you offer courses at your church primarily aimed at Christian speech? (Not on American First Amendment rights, or denominational and political history on church and state, or therapeutic/psychological stuff about personality types and self-expression, but primarily straight Biblical teaching on speech). Do your trustees or elders or staff meeting or business meeting policies have a policy on the type of speech/communication that is expected as well as what is out of bounds? Is anyone aware of an article about how a church intentionally addressed this issue and transformed its communication/speech, maybe starting with confession and repentance?
I ask because IMO this single issue is alienating more people from our churches, and maybe from our Lord, than most others. Ask your young people. Ask Baby Boomers who have dropped out. I hope we don’t get to the point where people feel safer out of church than in our church communities, and faith is a topic best avoided even amongst ourselves.
The old Church Covenant speaks to this issue:
“to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings; faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger…”
“to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and Christian courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation and mindful of the rules of our Savior to secure it without delay…”
-The Church Covenant
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/02/church-covenant.html
David R. Brumbelow
The Bible deals with some of that too.
Well yes it does. The Bible is where I got any wisdom on Christian speech. Because my experience in Baptist church was it was a big problem to which people tended to say “good luck with THAT.” I’ve been studying & pondering the issue for about 10 years, after several of those verses changed my life. I’m just surprised when churches fail to address their own in-church cultures of unChristian speech, and let that old typed-up church covenant yellow and crack in a dusty notebook in a corner closet.
Good resource.
Karen:
That is a great question.
Some have tried to post things on the internet, but they often end up sounding like pieces designed to promote a side.
I fear that trying to police the internet is too big a job.
Individual churches are another thing.
A lot is determined, however, by the general ethos of a place, rather than a particular rule.
Good stuff Dave.
One quote from your post stuck out to me: “I am content to be in a denomination with BOTH Beth Moore and Owen Strachan. We need not choose one view and eliminate the others.”
I share your contentment. However, after reading Owen and Denny Burk over the weekend, I’m not certain they are content to be in a denomination with Beth Moore, or me, and possibly you. This of course, is the point of contention.
I asked Denny–rather straightforwardly Saturday night–if his intention was to “tighten the circle” He directly answered “no.” But 3 days earlier said the following: “These are unquestionably second order concerns. And I am grateful that I otherwise share so much in common with many brothers and sisters on the other side of this issue. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the issue is unimportant. We are after all talking about what the scripture teaches, and second order concerns by definition define who we can link arms with in church and denomination contexts. The last thing that I want is for those relationships to be strained, which is why I hope and pray that the Lord might draw us closer together in common conviction about what scripture teaches.”
If they, like you and me, are content to share a denomination and its resources with people whose application of complementarianism doesn’t match their own, they aren’t very clear about that commitment. Both Owen and Denny owe Southern Baptists a clear answer.
Well said. I agree completely.
Dave Miller said, “I am content to be in a denomination with BOTH Beth Moore and Owen Strachan. We need not choose one view and eliminate the others.”
Great quote. Complimentarianism, Egalitarianism, whatever you want to call it is a doctrine that should be left up to the discernment of a local church to decide. It requires some determination and discernment regarding the movement of the Holy Spirit and the way each church member is spiritually gifted. The spirit attempts to build churches on a foundation of declaration of Christ as savior, and then fits the pieces together by the need for spiritual gifts and the willingness of members to use them in service to the church. I do not believe that this is an issue that warrants defining for denominational cooperation beyond what the BFM already says about it, which is that women should not serve as the pastor of a church. What constitutes submission and a woman’s role in the family and whether she is allowed to do what Peter said she could do in citing the prophet Joel, or which Paul says she can do if she’s under authority, is a matter for a local church to decide for themselves. They’re the ones who have to live and minister in the community where they are planted, they should not have to characterize their actions by stating that it is what their denomination told them they have to believe.
You can do the research on your own if you want to argue the point, but I would say that 80% of the effective discipleship that goes on in Southern Baptist churches is due to women taking responsibility for ministry, using their gifts, and in most cases, being effective Bible teachers. Perhaps some complimentarians don’t remember, or just ignore the fact that Mrs. Betty Criswell, wife of the venerable W. A., taught a mixed Sunday school class of over 300 members each Sunday morning for decades in the First Baptist Church of Dallas, and no one batted an eye.
So did Beth Moore and no one batted an eye. She was “harmless” when she’s taught Sunday School but now that her voice is lifted to call attention to mysoginy and abuse she’s a threat that needs to be discredited.
And who is she a threat to? The good old boy power structure.
I’ve said it in this forum and others til I am blue in the face. Follow any of these controversies far enough and it’s always about protecting power and control.
CJ Mahaney and his SBC enablers?
I never saw Beth Moore speak to that.
I saw Rachel Denhollander speak to that.
Beth Moore started speaking up last year, and I’m glad for that.
But there are others in the SBC who have been speaking, and ignored or made fun of for a decade.
So I don’t think it’s because of her recent statements on that topic.
I believe there is a disagreement here.
But I think the BFM is sufficient.
I just wish the temperature on Twitter would cool down.
Ha. The temp on Twitter may not cool down for a little while. Owen opened a can of worms. I don’t have a problem with harder complementarians, although it is much harder to deal with, but I have dealt and gone with it thus far in churches, it’s the ESS that I have a huge problem with and for me is a separation point.
I don’t agree with ESS. I’m with you on this.
But your making a strong theological argument.
What’s happening on Twitter just seems like an insult fest. Not theological inquiry.
Apologies, but what is ESS?
Never mind, I think I found out. “Eternal submission of the son.”
For the record, there have historically been two versions of ESS. One is clearly heretical. the other is not
I don’t see anything there with which I would disagree.
The arrangement of members and their spiritual gifts within the church is a matter for God to direct and the local church to discern. A denomination which is something not mentioned nor given authority in scripture, is going out on a limb by even interpreting scripture by stipulating that the office of pastor is limited to men. To attempt to tell local churches which of its members can do something that the Bible says they all can do, and which Paul says is one of the most preferable activities of a Christian is messing with their autonomy. Both sides of this discussion have scripture and Biblical examples to corroborate their view. Might be a good idea to read through that whole section in I Corinthians and pay particular attention to Chapter 13, especially verse 12.
I mentioned Betty Criswell because hard line rules and doctrinal boundaries in the SBC don’t apply to everyone. She did teach a Sunday School class, a mixed group made up of some of the most influential wheeler dealers and money people in First Baptist Church and if he’d been around, I think J.D. Greear would have seen that she did indeed teach “in an elder-like way.” The class was broadcast on the radio. It was the place where church leadership would go to get things done in a business meeting or to get money moving where they wanted it to go. Once W.A. “stepped down,” it became a place of resistance to his successors. On the only visit I paid to FBC Dallas, when I told them I was a seminary student, her class was the only one I was directed to by the visitor counter attendant. It was a church service. They sang a couple of hymns, made announcements, collected an offering and she ascended to the podium, one of the old church pulpits, and pontificated for 45 minutes, 5 minutes past the time for the next service to start. Half the people in the room were men, including several seminary professors. But her husband was a kingmaker and a denominational mover and shaker, perhaps the main influence behind the conservative resurgence, so it was, and remains, OK. But not for everyone.
Error is error. Either Beth is right or Owen is right, both can not be right. Here is what our SBC prez just said…
“1. At The Summit Church, can a woman teach in a formal church setting, like a large Sunday School class or an evening Bible study?
Yes, but not if she does so in a way that “mimics” the teaching authority of an elder. Perceptions are important, and if some in the church begin to look to a woman-teacher as their primary shepherd-leader, both she and they have gone into error. Thus, where small groups and Sunday School classes mimic the pastoral functions of the church (responsibility for shepherding, the beginning stages of discipline), we believed mixed-gender groups should be led (or at least co-led) by men.”
2. Can a woman teach during the time traditionally called “the sermon” at one of our weekend services?
Yes and No. As we have said, we believe a woman should not teach in a way that mimics the authority of an elder, and we believe that the sermon is the heart of church leadership. Thus, we have chosen not to allow the women to supply, by herself, the primary teaching component of a weekend service. While we have had women explain and exhort from the “pulpit” during the “sermon” time, we have always done it in a way that communicates that she does not bear the official teaching responsibility of the church. Because of the importance of the sermon in our worship services, we believe having a woman occupy the prime teaching slot (in the way that I do each weekend) would have her teaching in an elder-like way, even if she isn’t technically an elder.
Ryan is out of line to suggest this came up because men don’t want Beth talking about abuse. That was a shameful thing to say. He is deflecting and making a baseless accusation.
Here is what the Prez of SBC has to say.
2. Can a woman teach during the time traditionally called “the sermon” at one of our weekend services?
Yes and No. As we have said, we believe a woman should not teach in a way that mimics the authority of an elder, and we believe that the sermon is the heart of church leadership. Thus, we have chosen not to allow the women to supply, by herself, the primary teaching component of a weekend service. While we have had women explain and exhort from the “pulpit” during the “sermon” time, we have always done it in a way that communicates that she does not bear the official teaching responsibility of the church. Because of the importance of the sermon in our worship services, we believe having a woman occupy the prime teaching slot (in the way that I do each weekend) would have her teaching in an elder-like way, even if she isn’t technically an elder.
The majority of her followers who tweeted, did so to support women preachers and sometimes women pastors…read them. And Beth has yet to rebuke them.
Ryan made a shameful baseless claim that those who are talking about this just want to keep Beth from talking about abuse. He should provide evidence of this or apologizeof for hiss slander.
I stand with Owen, Burke, Buck and Moler
Lol.
Tell you what. You learn not to double post and to read and edit before you post and then I will take you seriously.
It’s very simple Alan, when Beth Moore was teaching SS no one cared she was teaching men. Now she’s not just corralled in a SS class at FBC Houston and she’s a heretic and trying to usurp authority.
Do your history and then come back and let’s talk.
And stand with who you want to. I prefer scripture and its Greek words and cultural contexts to standing with men.
Notice how you can replace “It’s always about power and control of Goobers” with “the SBC Deep State?” It’s the same theory, no matter how sincerely you talk yourself blue.
What makes you think I haven’t done my history Ryan? Your condenseding attitude is dripping. Where’s your proff of what you have stated? And you know full well I was saying I stood with those men on yuthe interrpertation of scripture. The double post was an accident. You made a claim…prove it…once again you make baseless claims and deflect….
Are you saying Moler, Burk, Buck and Owen are trying to shut her up from talking about abuse? That’s exactly what it looks like….
I’m really just surprised that people seemed surprised that Ms Moore preaches or Mr Greears position as if these are new and unexpected. I thought for sure Mr Greears statement came up last year before the election. I know I’ve personally been kind of annoyed by it for a couple years myself – no offense intended to Mr. Greear. The link I was seeing was just a reblog of an old position.
So far as Mr. Owen, I don’t agree with him, but I don’t think he’s being sexist, at least what I’ve read. I understand his position I believe. But I’ve come to different conclusions. Now some of the responses that came out in his favor were sexist and offensive. I hear that there was some of that in the other direction and I believe it.
For Ms Moores reaction, I don’t have a problem with it. I can’t speak for her. But challenging someone’s call, which is essentially what it sounded like, is a very personal matter in my opinion. And for a group of people who have had to fight to have any calling affirmed at all, for a group that has had to fight actual sexism and misogyny, and for someone who according to her own statement a year ago during the PP fiasco has dealt with being demeaned or dismissed along with years of being targeted, I can absolutely understand her reaction. You can’t stand by and watch people get wounded and attacked for prolonged periods of time and then get upset when they stand up for themselves more forcefully than you’re comfortable with. Maybe it wasn’t the ladylike, meek and mild response that some would like, especially from the crowd that is hyper-focused on women’s submission. But I think Ms Moore is fine to preach and I hope one day more women will be able to use their gifts and be affirmed in their calling.