Much pontification has been digitally uploaded to this site recently regarding the question as to whether or or not it is appropriate for a woman to serve as President of the SBC. My friend Casey Hough offered his thoughts on this subject at his personal page on Thursday. I asked Casey if I could post his text in full here at Voices in order to offer another opinion on the subject. Now, I must admit that I am not completely convinced by his argument (although the vast majority of it resonates loudly with me) but his tone and congenial tenor draw me in and I completely understand and appreciate his position. It is sound, valid and reasonable.
Allow me the personal privilege to share at the outset that my position is not a hardened one. However, I do see very clearly the role of SBC President as simply the moderator of a 2 day deliberative assembly, who does indeed give an address (not a sermon even though that is what we are now conditioned to expect) and who does have limited appointment opportunity, but who has no authority other than the act of presiding itself. Maybe I’m too much of a parliamentarian at heart but the fact is, the moderator in a parliamentary proceeding has no real authority. They simply help to facilitate deliberation. Thus, I believe the role, as I mentioned in William’s post, could be filled with a Baptist layman lawyer, a 75 year old deacon, a small church pastor, a female Sunday School teacher or a retired female missionary. From RRNR 10th ed (because that is the one that has 18 years of my ink, highlighting and dogears) we see that the presiding officer of a large assembly…
should be chosen principally for the ability to preside. This person should be well versed in parliamentary law and should be thoroughly familiar with the bylaws and other rules of the organization–even if he or she is to have the assistance of a parliamentarian. At the same time, any presiding officer will do well to bear in mind that no rules can take the place of tact and common sense on the part of the chairman.
Clearly, our 4 wonderful parliamentarians (Dr. McCarty, Dr. Greenway, Mr. Culbreth and Mrs. Whitfield) are tremendous assets during our annual meeting but the Presidents should be able to handle most things themselves. THAT is their job. To guide deliberation. I’m just afraid we’ve given too wide a birth to the presidency and have become conditioned to think of the position in terms of a pastorate and I believe that to be an unfortunate development.
That said, Casey offers a sound, articulate and reasonable argument while offering fair treatment of the opposing position without chastising or misrepresenting the view of others. This is the way brothers disagree without becoming irrational and slipping into bad argumentation. I wholeheartedly suggest a full reading of this article and larger perusal of his page, www.therenewedchurch.com for more helpful insights from this gracious pastor.
-Jay Adkins
Can a woman serve as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention?
by Casey Benjamin Hough
That is the question that is being tossed back and forth between various groups within my denomination. If you are looking for a definitive answer to that question in my blog post, then I am afraid you will be disappointed. The bylaws of the convention do not exclude a woman from being elected to the office of SBC President. I am not here to argue or speculate about the legal possibility of a such an arrangement. Furthermore, I am not here to question the clear and convictional leadership that countless women provide in our denomination. God has blessed the SBC with an abundance of leaders, many of whom are women. The SBC needs women for the accomplishment of its mission. We need strong, godly women in our churches. So, please hear me again, women are indispensable to the life of our churches and our convention. We need more women contributing to the decisions of our trustee boards and committees, which function as corporate bodies in our denominational government. God has uniquely gifted women for the building up of the body of Christ, and we must not ignore this reality. With that stated, I do think we need to be careful with our current debate regarding the possibility of a woman serving as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC’s custom of electing a qualified male to set the direction and lead the convention in the fulfillment of its mission is not without biblical precedent. Here is the main reason that I believe a woman should not be elected to serve as the President of the Southern Baptist Convention:
The Biblical Pattern of Qualified, Male Leadership in the Home and the Church
The pattern for spiritual leadership in the Scriptures is qualified, male leadership in the home and the church. Ephesians 5:18-33 makes it clear that God has ordered the family to function according to a pattern that derives from the relationship that Christ maintains with the church. The mutuality of the submission mentioned in verse 21 is qualified in verses 22-33. The suggestion is not that husbands are called to submit to their wives any more than Christ is called to submit to the church. The pattern holds. Wives submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.
At this point, there is a temptation to assume that submission entails inferiority, but this cannot be the case. According to 1 Corinthians 11:3, even Christ, at least for a season, was functionally submissive to the Father. What orthodox Christian would dare suggest that Christ was ever inferior to the Father during His submission? To make such a suggestion would destroy the doctrine of the Triune nature of God, which maintains that God eternally and simultaneously exists as one God in three distinct, functionally-different, yet ontologically-equal persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If submission and difference in role require an inferiority of personhood, then the doctrine of the Trinity evaporates before our eyes. And yet, Paul draws upon the analogy of the relationship between the Father and the Son to demonstrate the difference in role, but equality of person in the male-female relationship in marriage (1 Corinthians 11:3). Paul, however, does not limit the extent of this male-female relationship to marriage and family. He also extends it into the church.
In the church, God intends for qualified men to lead the church as pastors. The requirements for this role are explicitly spelled out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. It is important to note that not all men are qualified to lead in the church. Only men who, by the grace of Christ, are qualified with godly character and gifting should lead the church. Those who would contend that Paul is merely accommodating the culture of his day have to wrestle with the fact that he grounds his argument in the creation of male and female in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. To overcome Paul’s appeal to creation, some scholars have suggested that submission is a result of the fall, not God’s intended order from creation. Furthermore, they argue that submission has no place in the coming Kingdom of Christ. Such arguments fail to take into account the full storyline of scripture. The submission of a wife to her husband is not a result of the Fall. It is the pattern that God intends for marriage. In Christ’s relationship to the church, God has revealed the pattern that was broken in the Fall. Furthermore, while earthly marriages between husband and wife will cease in the fullness of the coming Kingdom of Christ (Matthew 22:30), submission as a reality of relationship will not cease. It will simply change from the shadow of the submission of a wife to her husband on earth to fullness of the church’s submission to her husband, Jesus Christ. Submission will not cease in the New Heavens and New Earth. Only those in the relationship of submission will change. From earthly wife to earthly husband, we, the church, as the bride of Christ, will be submissive to Him for all eternity as He exercises His Lordship for His glory and our good. In other words, submission is not a bad thing. Therefore, the proper functioning of gender roles in marriage and in the church has an eschatological significance. It is pointing to the day when perfect peace and submission will reign in the fullness of the Kingdom of Christ.
Another approach to Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is to believe that Paul is addressing a particular instance of false teaching in the church in Ephesus and that he does not have a universal principle in mind when he writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Others have taken the phrase, “to exercise authority,” to be pejorative, and thus meaning, “to domineer,” thus only excluding women from domineering forms of leadership. These attempts, however, to undermine a complementarian understanding of Paul’s letter to Timothy fails on several fronts.
First, whether Paul was addressing a particular instance of false teaching in Ephesus is beyond our information. It may be true that Paul was addressing a particular instance, but that would not necessarily make his instruction less applicable to other churches, especially since Paul goes on in later chapters to give specific instructions about the nature of church structure (1 Timothy 3). Second, while one might be able to demonstrate places where the terms behind “to exercise authority” have a pejorative meaning in extrabiblical literature, it is equally true that the same terms are applied to God in extrabiblical literature. The meaning of words and phrases are constrained by their context, and, in the case of 1 Timothy 2:12, “to exercise authority” is paralleled with “to teach,” which is not pejorative. Whatever “to exercise authority” means, it cannot be construed as pejorative without explaining how “to teach” is also pejorative. Third, if one narrowly takes “to exercise authority” to mean “to domineer,” then they have essentially only proven that women are not allowed to domineer others. This supposed solution would not even address domineering leadership among men. The pejorative understanding of “to exercise authority” creates more problems than it solves. Lastly, some explanation must be given regarding how these few verses in 1 Timothy 1 do not relate to the clear, universal instructions that Paul gives Timothy in 1 Timothy 3 regarding the ordering of the church. Instead of imposing a foreign context to the passage, wouldn’t it be best to read 1 Timothy 2 alongside the rest of the letter that is concerned with relationships in the church?
Ok, yea, so what?
At this point, someone might say, “Well, I agree with everything that you have said about the family and the local church, but what do patterns of leadership in the church and in the home mean for the Southern Baptist Convention?”
Well, it seems as though the pattern of the local church and the home extended into the larger cooperative efforts of the universal church. In Acts 15, when the churches sent representatives to Jerusalem to discuss the matter of circumcision among Gentile converts, the meeting was made up of apostles and elders. I recognize that there is a debate about the identity of Junia as either well-known “to the apostles” or a well-known “apostle” in Romans 16:7. Suffice it to say that I agree with Moo, Dunn, Cranfield, Fitzmeyer, and Schreiner as understanding Junia as a woman who was esteemed among the apostles as a traveling missionary. The term “apostle” can, and often does, mean simply “messenger.” And given the fact that Paul specifies in 1 Corinthians 15 that there were 12 apostles, it is almost certain that he does not include Junia in that designation. So, when we come to Acts 15 and find Luke’s designation of “the apostles and the elders” who descended upon Jerusalem to address the matter of circumcision, it is most reasonable to assume that Luke has the 12 apostles in mind with Paul serving as the one “untimely born” (1 Corinthians 15:5-11). Furthermore, it is also most reasonable to assume that these leaders were men who came from their local churches and families to discuss the business of the broader church. In this, I discern a pattern from the family and the local church that informs the broader mission and leadership of the broader church in Acts 15. Furthermore, I believe this pattern would rightly extend to the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention.
When messengers elect a president, they are electing someone who will set a direction and lead the convention on matters regarding the church and the family. Furthermore, the president will often be called upon by churches and other denominational entities to bring spiritual leadership and direction. Based upon the biblical pattern of qualified, male leadership in the church and the family, I believe it wise for Southern Baptists to continue its custom of electing qualified, male leaders to the presidency of the SBC. This is in keeping not only with the biblical pattern found in Acts 15, but also the pattern of church leadership that we find in the earliest centuries of church history. As best as I can tell, qualified, male leaders from regional churches attended the ecumenical councils of the early church. Thus, the SBC’s custom is shaped by both the testimony of Scripture and the testimony of the early church.
The argument that the Southern Baptist Convention is not the church and that the president of the SBC does not function in a pastoral role, and thus, therefore, can be fulfilled by a woman, seems to ignore the significance of a biblical pattern of qualified, male leadership in matters concerning the family and the church. The question is not, therefore, whether or not a woman “can” serve as SBC president, but rather, “should” a woman serve as SBC president. For me, the pattern of Scripture seems to suggest that in matters of spiritual leadership, particularly concerning the family and the church, God has assigned this role to qualified men.
Therefore, I believe it is biblically warranted and wise to maintain the SBC’s custom of only electing qualified men to serve as the president of the SBC because it is in keeping with the biblical pattern of qualified, male leadership in the family and in the church.
SBC Voices is committed to presenting reasonable positions on multiple sides of issues. We are anything but monolithic. We will always consider a reasonable counterpoint to any point of view we advance.
Casey Hough presents such a reasonable argument here.
Thank you, brother! Continuing to pray for your recovery.
Well thought out and biblical argument! It is the way I have been thinking but unable to articulate. Thanks
I certainly endorse the use of and appreciate arguments that use the Bible as their foundation, even if I disagree with them. This is a good one, and one I will give much thought to. Thanks for posting it.
God appointed women as Judges, Priestesses, Prophetesses and Deaconesses when He was doing all the electing Himself. I don’t understand how we can form an earthly organization with our restrictive rules, especially after after He told us He’d be pouring out His Spirit on ALL flesh, and that our daughters would be prophesying. There’s got to be a reason why He told us that.
Having men discuss what a woman can and cannot do is a little disconcerting as we women have been writing and speaking on this for years and not listened to by men in the SBC.
Debbie,
Men have been tone deaf? yes you are right. they have been.
But today and at least here, you have a chance to be heard.
Please then speak up and present your case.
LOL and spew coffee all over my keyboard!
Michael White,
It is quite possible that I have been interacting with Mrs. Debbie Kaufman for longer than anyone on this blog other than her pastor.
For you to tell Mrs. Kaufman to “speak up and present your case” is like asking for the Atomic Bomb to be set off again in Japan in order to check if the noise level was high enough.
Never, in Baptist blog history has anyone, male or female, spoken up and presented their case as strongly, consistently or “loudly” as has the Oklahoma Sooner, Mrs. Debbie Kaufman.
Debbie, I couldn’t agree more. It is past time for our voices to be heard.
Thanks Debbie. Your voice and others have been promoting a clearer and more relevant position for a long time. We can still be biblical and develop our theology according to the context of today. It’s meaningless if we don’t look at TODAY, while at the same time holding to biblical truth. Women, TODAY, can lead without defying scripture. Women, TODAY, do this all over the world.
But let’s look at the past and Casey’s use of Acts 15. If Acts 15 is arrogated to imply male-only leadership in the SBC, then I too will spew my coffee, ala cb scott, all over the computer screen. The Jerusalem Council passage is a key to demonstrating that that gospel is for all peoples. The mission of the church was identified and it was not one of law-keeping. Using Acts 15 as an argument for male leadership takes one of the great missionary passages of the Bible and makes it something it is not. I do read the male references in Acts 15, and I do understand in the context of the first-century church.
Peter and Cornelius’ story further demonstrate the grace of the gospel extending beyond the Jews. In today’s church, we simply cannot be applying ‘law’, as some were doing in Antioch, without regard to people. All people, panta ta ethne, is the central theme of these passages – not who can lead the SBC. We should take care not to cherry-pick our scriptures.
I am tremendously disconcerted when I read ‘the question is not whether a woman can serve, but whether she should.’ I don’t care if a woman becomes President of the Convention, although the right woman at the right time would be fine with me. But I do care about women within the body of Christ, how they are perceived by others and how they perceive themselves within the framework of the gospel narrative.
I’m going to post this too soon and wish I had let it rest for awhile. Oh well. Tired of trying to be diplomatic.
” I don’t care if a woman becomes President of the Convention, although the right woman at the right time would be fine with me. But I do care about women within the body of Christ, how they are perceived by others and how they perceive themselves within the framework of the gospel narrative.”
This thread has become long and I, personally, am responsible for taking it “off track” for which I apologize. However, it is my opinion that the statement from Ms. Lin that I have isolated above may well be the most significant statement made thus far in this thread. I think it is excellent and presents us with the heart of the issue before us in this post.
Thanks, cb.
Here here! CB!
I am unapologetically complementarian, as is the church I pastor. I understand and appreciate Casey’s explanation, but I disagree with his conclusion for the following reasons.
1. We devalue the local church when we take biblical leadership instructions intended specifically for the local church, and transfer them to a non-church organization. The annual meeting is not the bride of Christ. The President of the SBC is not the same as a pastor of a local church.
2. Where Scripture gives boundaries, let us observe those boundaries with joy. Where Scripture gives us freedom, let us exercise that freedom with joy. The addition of extra-biblical boundaries brings into questions the sufficiency of Scripture.
3. Biblically, a woman can do anything in the church a non-elder man can do. See “Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles” by Kathy Keller.
Should a woman serve as the SBC President? Yes please.
Cody,
Good reply until the last line.
Nothing in your previous words support this conclusion.
The debate is can a woman so serve and that can be construed to: should a woman so serve if she can do so Biblically.
Your reply sought to say that Biblically there are no provisions prohibiting it, at least directly. [your point 3] But just because something is ‘legal’ doesn’t mean it should be done. That is a different argument.
Its like ‘legally’ [per the Bible] a Christian can drink wine but whether they should or not is something else.
Michael: I have a very hard time with the argument that if legally something can be done doesn’t mean it should be done and comparing women to be Prez of SBC to drinking issue. That is an insult to women and I think completely misses the point.
Debbie,
Im sorry you didnt get my point.
Is it biblically legal for aperson to drink alcohol in moderation? yes.
But should they? That is a different argument.
It might be biblically legal for a woman to be the SBC president but is it necessery and expedient?
Like I said, that is a different argument.
It begins with 1st Cor. 10:
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. 25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.
I am not making the argument for or against the position, but simply stating that such an argument is not the same as whether a woman could or could not please God in holding that position.
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. And we should not seek our own profit but the profit of the many.
Feel free to explore both sides of that issue and come down on one or the other. But to say that just because it is legal means we should do it is a bad argument.
I guess I am not completely understanding Michael. Your argument just doesn’t sit right as a woman whose role in the SBC convention is being talked over by men. The argument that the Convention is not a church should be argument enough and gives women a lot of freedom to go where she feels God is leading her. By men talking about it, it appears as if we need your blessing or your covering and we do not. And I am complementarian.
Debbie,
I understand. men talking over woman can and does seem like you are, well, less.
But that is why your voice here is important. Yours and the other fine ladies who are speaking up. At east here, and maybe in other places, that I don’t know, men are listening and wanting to hear your opinions and in this thread, your opinions on this matter.
The discussion is, as I am sure you know, about the biblical role of woman in various offices of the convention, particularly the president of the convention. Your voice is welcomed and encouraged, by the blog team and as far as I know, most other posters.
That you might not like my argument is okay. WE shoud agree to disagree on nn-essential positions. I am not sure you know my argument though.
My argument is that I dont see any direct biblical evidence that would prohibit a woman from being SBC president, given the nature of that position and the words of Scripture.
And that just because such an election is ‘legal’ doesnt mean that this time is the right time to ush for it.But I am also not saying it is a wrong time either, for to push for now or not is a different argument then what we are presently engaged in.
And if you wish to start a new discussion on why the next SBC president shoud be a woman, then write it up, presenting your premises, and possibly noting why objections fall short and submit it to Voices.
Debbie, I see often where you say “as a woman whose role … is being talked over by men” or similar syntax. Is it your position that a woman’s say should carry more weight than a man’s because she is directly experiencing her role?
If so, I disagree. We women ought to have equal input with men as our roles are discussed. As long as we are not shut out of the conversation, we should not attempt to shut men out of it. And vice versa- we ought to have a say in men’s roles in the church and convention. We would not accept a man telling us women to butt out because they’re discussing men’s roles. We would rightly argue that how they contribute affects us, and for that reason, we should accept – no, WANT – their discussion of our roles. We should care that they care to talk about this until we all get it right. And as for getting it right, every discussion, every opinion ought to be supported by how we see this addressed in scripture.
Debbie, I believe the argument “I experience it, so I get more say”’ is a dangerous one to make. In the secular arena, it is the one thrown out most often to silence pro-life men. “My body. My choice.” Never mind that it affects him too.
We women in this discussion must be careful not to applaud the men who are agreeing with whichever stance we’ve taken while telling other men they shouldn’t get a say. Either they all do (which is where I stand), or argue that none of them do.
It is my position that a woman should speak on her role in the church etc. and the men should allow the woman to speak. A man is not a woman, does not know her desires as a woman etc. Do we get to tell men how and when to do their roles? So I would disagree with you Stephanie on the grounds of good ole common sense and what I believe the Bible teaches concerning women and their right to speak about themselves. I also think both men and women should have this conversation together, but not without women involved in the conversation.
And it is my body. If married then both should talk about it without outside interruption. If I do not want more than 3 children, I am the one who carries the child. I should have a say while also hearing my husband, but not as the last word. Both should make the decision in mutual agreement. Nowhere in scripture is that taught. Yes, I do believe in birth control and did use it as having another child would have ended my life or brought me close to death. I believe in choice of how many children to have and if none I am OK with that too. But do not turn that around as I believe in abortion because I do not.
I think we should follow what scripture says, but men do not necessarily have the one up on what scriptures say Stephanie. Women study scripture too and can interpret it just fine, just as well if even better than men. So again we would disagree. And again I am complementarian. Not Patriarchy. Complementarian. Boy do we disagree Stephanie. But it is good to see women weight in here even if we disagree.
I wasn’t really asking your take on birth control – actually I addressed abortion as a societal issue, just making a comparison between two faulty arguments (“You’re a man, you can’t give birth, this you don’t get an opinion on whether abortion should be legal or not” and “you’re a man, you don’t know how it feels to be shut out, you don’t get a say on a woman’s role in the church”). I’m glad to see you clarify your position and hope I made you more aware that previous comments of yours read like you did not want an equal role in the discussion, but a larger-than-men’s role in the discussion.
The vast majority of us in the SBC also adhere to the Biblical teaching that women cannot be deacons in the church also.
Greg,
and each individual church should decide that for themselves, yes?
And may I also get a hold of you when I need to know what the vast majority of SBCers want on other subjects, as well?
Available anytime :); although I am a bit amused you did not have a comment for the guy who instructed all of us as the fact that women could hold any non elder position in the church. My remark just balanced out his absolutism; maybe this is true in his church, but not in most of our SBC churches. Sorry, no one explained the double standard to me here. Ok for him to make such a dogmatic statement that does not reflect SBC reality, but God help anyone who might put the statement in perspective.
Greg,
No double standard.
But a big difference.
He was speaking his opinion, and I took it as his opinion.
You, on the other hand, brother, claimed to speak for “the vast majority of us in the SBC”.
Have a blessed day.
Michael, This is a bit of double talk on your part. You know I was stating a fact. Unless you are trying to ignore or manipulate the facts for an audience, take it for that. I am having a good day.
Greg,
How do I know it is a fact?
Not only do you know what the majority of SBCers think, you even know what I think before I think it.
You are amazing sir!
Greg, instead of what you did, just show us the facts and the sources where you got your information. I mean you didnt ask all of us did you?
And i 100% deny your groundless accusation that i was trying to manipulate the audience.
You made the statement, now please back it up.
Either way, whether you do or not, I hope you have a blessed day.
The problem here Michael is that I am dealing with logic, and you are off the page. The convention has spoken on this subject when it has passed a resolution that only ordained offices in the church could be held by women in Kansas City. If you don’t like it then present a resolution to the contrary at the next convention and watch it go up in smoke. And by way identify yourself at the mike when you speak as the spokesman for the vast majority of SBC Voices. Now as far as “all of us”, if the vast majority of those on this web site agree with supporting ordaining woman deacons, slandering godly men with no rebuke, trashing the conservative resurgence, etc. then I would like to know so that we can let everyone know.
To correct what I said: Meant to say- “the convention said in Kansas City that only ordained offices in the church could be held by men”. Sorry for mis speak. Thanks.
Again, I would differ with you on that Greg. Many Southern Baptist churches have women as deacons.
I appreciate the effort in this article. Folks do disagree on the matter and it’s appropriate to discuss it here and elsewhere.
But I am unclear if Casey considers male SBC leadership to be a matter of principle that should be maintained or if this is just his personal preference based on his understanding of these male/female passages. If the former, then the situation is a serious matter over which there can be no compromise. If the latter then he and those like him would understand that not all of our personal preferences are fulfilled but we can still work and serve together.
I’d offer a couple of observations. The founders and subsequent leaders of the SBC were extremely deliberate in being sure that their creation, a convention of churches, would not be seen as a church or that it’s offices would not be seen as fitting anywhere in the biblical system of church polity. Thus, we have a “convention” that never meets on the Lord’s Day, whose officers are called by secular terminology, and whose meetings are controlled by secular parliamentary rules.
The president may have some initiatives, some theme for his term(s) but in no way does he he “set the direction and lead the convention in the fulfillment of its mission.” Neither is there any authority given to the president. He appoints a few committees and presides. That’s it. Not one single power is allotted him over any church or Southern Baptist. There’s no spiritual leadership and earlier SBs would be aghast that there is any suggestion of such because it smacks of a hierarchy.
The SBC, that convention of churches that exists for two out of 365 days each year is not a church. It is not a family (although often spoken of as one, usually a dysfunctional family). To say, “The argument that the Southern Baptist Convention is not the church and that the president of the SBC does not function in a pastoral role, and thus, therefore, can be fulfilled by a woman, seems to ignore the significance of a biblical pattern of qualified, male leadership in matters concerning the family and the church” seems to me to be a non sequitur but I understand that Casey though he had built a case for making the jump. I think not.
Many SBs would gently take issue with Casey on this business of “the” church or that the SBC in its “larger cooperative efforts” would ever be referred to as the universal church. The SBC is composed of “churches” in friendly cooperation with one another. It has never been represented as a “church” itself.
My guess is that Jason Allen’s approach to this is a better, strictly pragmatic, and probably with good reason.
I’d ask Casey if anything changes for him when looking at the two VP positions or are these male-only positions as well.
Hi William,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The next two days in my life will be crazy busy, but I do intend to respond to your thoughts and question. I will try to get back with you by Tuesday. Thanks again.
I tend to agree with William Thornton. I also agree with Cody Busby in his first and second points. I think Micheal White addresses Cody Busby’s third point rather well and wisely.
It does seem rather obvious that we must walk with the carefulness and wisdom that is mandated for us in Ephesians 5:15 through this and many other issues we face our contemporary culture as Christ followers.
CB has been to charm school…I join his remarks.
I think the difference comes down in how each of you defines “church”.
It would seem to me that Casey and others of his point of view on this matter sees “church” more in terms of church universal, the whole “where two or more are gathered” thing. And that view, in concert with an opinion that Paul’s instructions as to church structure apply to any gathering to do gospel work, leads him to his conclusions.
Whereas, William wrote “The SBC is composed of ‘churches’ In friendly cooperation with one another. It has never been represented as a ‘church’ itself.” Which, by that definition, suggests that William believes Paul’s instructions to church structures are specifically for local gatherings.
I am not convinced either way, which is partly why I have followed these discussions so closely. Actually, I think the scriptures show a healthy tension between both views.
I think Jay did a brilliant job framing the issue. Having been raised by a single mom for years, I know that woman can do amazing things in and out of the church though.
I appreciate the shout out but I think you meant “Casey did a brilliant job…”
Oh, sorry. Brilliant job Casey:). Thanks Jay!
I think it’s wonderful that SBs are getting around to talking about women in ministry again. Haven’t heard such conversation since before the Fundamentalist Takeover. Good to see the 40 year wilderness wandering is over.
Jerry Evans,
It is highly doubtful that the “conversation” here on SBC Voices about women in ministry would be taken as far as you and other theological liberals would desire to take it.
I think the goal of most here would be to have our convention to be more in accord with biblical truth and not less. Most of the people who comment here believe the Bible to be inerrant and infallible. Most have a high view of Scripture and their desire is to adhere to the sufficiency of Scripture and not add to or subtract from it. You, on the other hand do not take such a view.
Never are those who seek to be obedient to the inerrant Word of God be “wandering in the wilderness.” It is only those who do not seek to be obedient to the inerrant Word of God who will forever be wandering in the wilderness.
Sea Bass,
I believe the Bible to be the Word of God as much or more than you do. The Holy Spirit has rightly guided humanity in recording the acts and speech events of God. Only God is inerrant. Paige Patterson says they got all the mistakes out of the Bible, so one can confidently say it’s inerrant. Fine and good. What are definitely errant are some of SB’s interpretations of the Bible. Do you worship the Bible or the God of the Bible? Saying the word ‘inerrant” about the Bible is not some magic word that puts one in right standing with God. It’s about Jesus. I cherish the Bible, but I worship and adore Jesus Christ.
Jerry,
CB certainly does need me to speak for him so I’m not going to even try to do that – but …
In all honesty, despite your inferences, Absolutely nothing CB said regarding inerrancy of scripture inferred a worship of the Bible. Nothing.
Stop that, please. It’s an old worn out tactic.
Jerry Evans,
Dr. Patterson had no bearing on the Scripture being inerrant or infallible. The Bible is inerrant and infallible because it is the Word of God. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God from the first Word in Genesis through the last Word in the Revelation. The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself and His purposes to humanity. There is not one error in God’s revelation of Himself and His purpose to us. Not one.
We both know that you are not an inerrantist. You fought the concept, truth, and reality of during the CR and you have not changed. You are still an old school liberal. You maintain a low view of Scripture. It is from that position that you make your comments about women.
Most of the people here on Voices believe the Bible to be inerrant. They maintain a high view of Scripture. Therefore, they couch their views, questions, inquiries, and opinions from that perspective.
My personal position is that a female can serve as a president of anything of which she is capable and for which she is appointed, elected, or hired based upon her capabilities. I believe that the Scripture prohibits a female serving in the position of a local church pastor. I don’t believe there is a prohibition against a female being president of the SBC. The SBC is not a local church. The SBC is not found in the Bible. It is a para-church entity. I believe a female can serve as POTUS. However, I am happy that Mrs. Clinton is not serving as POTUS. If Ms. Condoleezza Rice had ran in the previous presidential race, she would certainly have had my vote.
Liberals like you, Jerry Evans, would push the positions of service in the SBC life beyond the parameters of revealed Scripture. It is people like you who cause many Bible believing Southern Baptists to approach this issue with caution, both female and male. People like you are the problem, Jerry Evans, regardless of gender.
Good grief. I believe in the inerrancy of the original autographs. I also believe the copies we possess are faithful to those originals. By God’s providence, He has kept copies of the originals free from any significant corruption. Therefore, we can have full confidence that the Bible in our hands is the Word of God.
I quoted your cult leader, Paige Patterson, about his confidence in having found all the errors of transmission. No doubt, God loves the Bible too. He went to a lot of trouble to get it in our hands through all these centuries. I am in awe that I have a copy. It is priceless treasure to me. This circular argument about inerrancy is a deflection I have not felt the need to defend. Just read the Bible and right away you’ll know it is a holy, supernatural book.
As for Mrs. Clinton, I am glad to know you did not vote for her. Have never voted for a Democrat in my entire life and never will. So glad she and Patterson are gone. Southern Baptists can now begin to dismantle the cult compound at Southwestern and restore it to the conservative glory days of the Dilday era.
Jerry Evans,
The conservatives of the CR were not cultists then and they are not now. The CR was truly a grassroots movement of Bible believing Southern Baptists who believed the SBC was straying from its foundations. They were right. The convention had to be taken back from the hands of people like you, liberals. Had the CR not occurred the SBC would have gone the way of many other denominations that have abandoned a strong adherence to the authority of Scripture.
It is true that Dr. Patterson was a leader. However, he was not the only leader. There were many. For you to continue to bring Dr. Patterson up in this thread does nothing but prove you have no true theological substance from which to state your opinion. You are simply building strawman arguments and gas lighting. The one thing you have done, even if they remain silent, is prove to every conservative who reads comments on Voices that you are not an inerrantist. You do not adhere to a high view of Scripture and that you are an old school liberal holdover from before the days of the CR. You are prime evidence of the necessity of the CR.
The CR was no cult and Dr. Patterson was not a cult leader during the CR. It is obvious you have no true comprehension of the meaning of the word cult or you are using the word just to make derogatory remarks toward the CR birthed from your hatred of it.
Russell Dilday: “I am conservative.”
Paige Patterson: “You’re conservative alright. But you ain’t one of us.”
Patterson and Pressler took out conservative Bible scholars left and right. I saw it first hand, front row, inner circle of friends. Saw through and disdained Patterson right away. It took me ten years to see through Pressler. The SWBTS trustees really amazed me by disgracing Patterson the way they did. It took them 40 years, but they finally saw enough rotten fruit. Hopefully Southwestern Seminary can be salvaged.
Jerry Evans,
The trustees did not disgrace Dr. Patterson. He did that on his own. On the other hand, he had many, many years as a capable and competent leader in SBC life. His life, just as was King Solomon’s life, is a warning to us all that we must keep our focus on Christ and Christ alone because the idol of self-gratification is a consuming god who shipwrecks its worshipers and leaves them in shame.
Not a cult leader like those who have authored literature on par with the Bible or denying the deity of Christ…. But the lesser signs are ample. Patterson held the highest authority in the SBC. And he used his power, boy, did he use his power. He could make or break a Baptist pastor. He promoted non-essential doctrines as infallible and made his followers sign documents in support or they would be fired. He erected stained glass images to honor himself and his cohorts in the Fundamentalist Takeover. He appropriated large sums of money to his own projects while seminary professors and staff did without raises or retirement money. He fired and discredited our precious women. He refused accountability. He connived, manipulated and appropriated property for his own use. He combined “mission trips” with safaris where he murdered exotic animals and later had Southeastern seminary pay the taxidermy bills. He and his wife courted and sweet talked many a wealthy person and widow into leaving their fortunes for his purposes. Patterson received adoration, standing ovations, glory and worship unto himself. He even planned to live out his days in a $2.5 million dollar home on the campus at Southwestern. And no one, no one, no one ever called him to account for all these things. His cult followers are complicit. Now that he has been taken down by a couple of young women and the Me Too movement, all of a sudden Southern Baptists are talking about women in ministry again. I would venture to also say he has covered up for Paul Pressler for decades, knowingly. It’s one of the darnedest things me and my conservative friends have ever seen in our entire lives.
Don’t forget Darrell Gilyard!
And Of course Dorothy Patterson teaches that the only reasons for the creation and existence of women is to support men (husbands) in helping them become all that they can be and procreation.
Some of the things she has said has made me feel like some kind of cross between a Labrador retriever and a breeding sow!
“murdered exotic animals.”????
Jerry Evans, I know you are a theological liberal. That’s evident and always has been. I did not know you are a tree-hugging PETA spokesman also. Legally hunting and killing game animals in not “murder.” It is hunting and killing game animals and nothing more.
As for the rest of your comment, some of it is correct and some of it is not. It is obvious that your knowledge of Dr. Patterson, and of Judge Pressler also, is not firsthand, but only what you have read or heard from those who know about as much or less than you do.
Dr. Patterson did many good things as a leader within the ranks of the SBC and as a minister of the gospel as well. Sadly, in these latter years, he has not done well. However, he is still alive and I, for one, pray for him that he might finish well for Jesus. I state that because I know personally our God is a God of the second chance . . . and the third and the fourth. Of course, I may be casting pearls before swine by stating that to you.
I don’t think Patterson did very well as a pastor. Wiki states he pastored several churches before the Criswell gig. Anyone know where and if they experienced any growth?
CB, you do not know squat about me. My knowledge is first hand in many respects. Your playing of the liberal card is really getting old. You got any other cards in your deck? You have not seen and experienced what I have and I have not gone into sharing the uglier stuff I could share. You are right about Patterson and Pressler disgracing themselves. It is a sobering warning to us all. We all reap what we sow. Only Jesus deserves our worship and adoration. I have vented here at SBC Voices and think my wrestling and sparing, most of it with you, are about done. Am grateful it’s 70 x 7 in the forgiveness realm. And yeah, the animals got a raw deal this first time around. Not impressed by obese guys who think they look cool posing with high powered rifles and their slain wall trophies.
There seems to be at least a dozen differing definitions of inerrancy. The late Fuller president David Allan Hubbard states the obvious: “To recruit students or rally support or withhold fellowship over a definition of biblical inerrancy or the appropriateness of using the term seems futile, if not wicked.”
1. First, the history. A woman was nominated for president of the SBC in 1972. Marie Mathis (Often called “Mrs. R.L. Mathis”) of Maryland was nominated by Russell H. Dilday Jr. of Georgia. Mrs. Mathis had been the first elected female officer of the SBC when she was elected 2nd Vice President of the SBC back in 1963. In 1972 six different individuals, including Mrs. Mathis, were nominated for President. The first person nominated was Owen Cooper, a layman from Mississippi. He was nominated by Jerry Clower. (Owen had been Clower’s boss at Mississippi Chemical Corps. before Clower went full time into comedy.)
After the first vote there was a run off between Owen Cooper and Jerry Coggin, pastor of Travis Avenue Baptist Church in Fort Worth. Of course Cooper won. He presided in 1973-1974 and remains the last layman elected president of the SBC. There is no way to know how many votes Mrs. Mathis received.
2. Second, the question no one is asking. If a woman is elected president of the SBC how many pastors will lead their churches to leave or disengage from the SBC? This could be the most controversial thing the SBC had done in years. I could easily see hundreds of Southern Baptist churches protesting this decision if it happens. Just my thoughts….
You bring up a good point. There is a serious rumble in the convention right now. People in large numbers are saying the convention has left them and they have no longer come. Others like me have silently watched the organized effort to remove us from our roots. I made a decision sitting in the convention this year that I can no longer be silent. We lack leadership in our convention right now and the voices out their in my opinion are leading over a spiritual cliff.
Wow! What a profoundly apocalyptic point of view….
Good thing though you’ve offered to be the epic hero/savior of the convention.
Dave, not a prophet or a son of prophet. Just want to share my concerns that I have kept to myself; and believe or not, as the happy convention attender, I am surprising a lot of people by speaking out, and maybe one or two them might be interested.
Ben and Greg: Judging by the voting by the messengers this meeting in which the votes were practically 98% for and 2% against most things, I would say your use of the word most and many is wrong. Perhaps the Convention is leaving you and I for one am grateful. Not that you would leave, but that your ideology is leaving. We are getting back to what the Bible actually teaches or what I see it teaching and for that I was a woman and a Christian am glad. I see it treating people as human beings no matter their skin color, gender or country origin. That is a good thing and closer to scripture. I am also glad that rape and abuse victims have been taken seriously. And Ben Stratton, I am especially glad we would be leaving your ideology behind. Although it has been happening for a few years now.
Debbie, You have no idea what I believe. I have championed women’s rights and racial equality for years. I lived in poverty because my single mother was paid unjustly in a “man’s world”. I am a minority (I am Jewish). My diverse church knows this. I don’t live in the insulated Bible belt, I live in California. I am in Colossians 3 today, in a passage that deals with social, cultural, and racial discrimination. You can watch my sermon on the internet. No will deal with racial equality any stronger than I will this morning. This old thinking that is corrupting our convention, where people make accusations, and slander people without any evidence and knowledge about what they are talking about is disgraceful. This may have a place in the corrupt dirty world of politics, but I do not want this kind of smear and accusation in my convention. Those of us who are non aligned are tired of this embarrassing, ungodly, and non-professional approach. I have read the slander of good people on this blog, and even when the truth comes out publicly to exonerate those who have been crucified in the court of slander, there are no apologies or retractions. I believe that is the height of arrogance.
I guess I don’t have any idea what you believe. Certainly not based on your comments, that is for sure.
Then Greg I have to ask why you comment as you have which leads me to think that your views are opposite of what you have articulated above. And don’t tell me I read them wrong as I have gone over them more than once and my reading comprehension is just fine. Is it to stir the pot? I am just trying to figure out why in the world you would comment as you have and then call foul because I call you out on them.? As for you saying this is the height of arrogance, which shoot I can take that hit just fine if it makes you feel better to turn it around to my fault, I call it calling it as I see or read them.
You just read my comment and I could not have clearer.
Why don’t you guys who would like to see a Woman SBC Convention President start at home. Why don’t you pastors offerer to step aside as moderator in your local church and let the women take it on from time to time? How many of you have nominated a woman as for moderator of your association. What about President of your State convention. Why are you suddenly pushing this for the SBC when you aren’t pushing this in your local sphere?
In due time it may happen. The Fundamentalistic Takeover stopped the advance of women in the SBC. By amending the BFM, they installed very strong measures against any and all advancement of women. Now the SBC has to decide to live with this if it can. The FT was more about stopping women than adhering to inerrancy. With Patterson and Pressler gone, there is now all kinds of freedom to address the subject matter. Prior to their demise, fear sealed lips and most of you would have been too afraid to address the subject.
Not to derail the subject but I have always felt that the pastor should not moderate business meetings (which is what I think you mean). There’s no earthly reason a woman cannot moderate a business meeting. In our church the pastor is barred from moderating business meetings.
Bill Mac,
Just curious, in your church – Is the moderator another elder than a vocational pastor – or are all elders precluded?
All elders are precluded. Moderators of meetings should not be persons of authority. Moderators should not speak for or against motions. Indeed they should not speak at all except for what is necessary to keep the meeting moving forward.
Bill Mac,
I’m sincerely curious…
So do elders sit in meetings and interact by speaking to issues as they desire and voting or are they precluded from that as well?
Of course they do. That is precisely why they are precluded from moderating. As I said, a moderator’s only job is to run the meeting. The person in the highest authority in an organization should not also be the final authority on the conduct of business. This is simply good meeting form (and not novel). I didn’t make this up.
I know this isn’t common practice in the SBC and I would hardly say this is a super serious issue, however if we had a pastoral candidate that insisted that he moderate business meetings, that would certainly raise red flags. We once had a candidate who not only insisted he run the business meetings but also brought along his own bylaws. He didn’t get a second interview.
Thanks. Like I said – just curious.
No prob. There are exceptions, of course. The president of the SBC’s job, as I understand it, is to moderate the annual meeting. Since he (or she? ;)) doesn’t really have much in the way of authority over anyone, it isn’t much of a problem. I was president of FFA in high school and I moderated the meetings, but my only authority was to moderate meetings. That’s not really how it is with pastors though.
We have tried very hard in our church to sharply delineate the roles and responsibilities of elders, deacons and others so in the absence of a vocational pastor (which happens all too often in a very small SBC church in the frozen north) we continue to function almost without a hitch. Our pastor is expected to preach, teach, visit, and counsel in areas where he is qualified to do so. All else, and indeed some pastoral things as well, are handled by the congregation.
Can a woman serve as SBC President? Absolutely. Could I ever vote for a woman as SBC President? You bet. Give me a runoff election between Dave Miller and any woman in the convention, and I’ll vote for the woman, just to avoid two days of the green suit.
But here’s the better question, I think: Knowing that we can elect to this office whomever we wish, does electing a pastor as SBC President offer any advantages in the discharge of the presidential duties? Does the President HAVE to preach all over the convention? Of course not. But does the President’s preaching all over the convention serve the convention well? I think it does.
If the question is about what we CAN do, then I land on it one way. And there are things that I do just to prove that I can do them (like post curmudgeonly posts and comments from time to time). But when I cast my vote for SBC President, I generally don’t cast it just to prove a point about what I can or cannot do; I look for the candidate who brings the most and the best to the position. It will always be my conviction, I think, that electing a pastor into that office brings some good things into the office just by virtue of his being a pastor.
Debbie,
Bart’s response [hopefully above] is one person’s opinion that on the electing a woman president is okay, but he might not vote for her for other reasons, like the example he gave of the president having the right under God to preach. Maybe though others might see that as a negative for a woman as president, but might also see the idea that the exposure the SBC woud get might out weigh it.
So what Bart is doing is taking the should-we-have-a-woman-sbc-prez argument and moving past it on to why-or-why-not-should-we vote-for-a-woman-prez, in his opinion. Or why it may be ‘lagal’ to have a woman but why it may not be the best.
Ohhh Ok Michael. Duh, I get it now and don’t necessarily disagree. Yes I can definitely see this.
Well said, Bart… especially about Dave.
What Jay said about what Bart said. 🙂
If there is an interest or priority of having the President “preach all over the Convention”, then it seems it may be wise to elect someone who doesn’t have the responsibility of a local church, and would be free to travel “from sea to shining sea” preaching and inspiring local congregations.
I have always wondered if a retired pastor would be better suited for this position if traveling and interacting with member churches is a priority. It is always seemed to me that there is an inherent conflict when the President of the SBC is expected to preach at his own church (which is usually a mega church) and travel to other churches and preach there, too. A retired preacher would be free from such responsibilities. A similar conflict developed when David Platt became the Teaching Pastor of McLean Bible Church while he was President of the IMB. Likewise, Frank Page was the Teaching Pastor of a church while he was chairman of the Executive Committee of the SBC. Sometimes, folks can wear to man hats.
What spiritual gifts do you look for in a president? In Baptist churches I was in, there was no practice of asking what spiritual gifts a candidate for trustee, teacher, etc. had. In my current church, most job descriptions state the skills AND spiritual gifts that are ideal for the position. That seems Biblical.
Karen,
The problem is that the office of the president of the sbc convention is not a biblical one. Unless one is electing a good preacher, the job is not so much about skills as it is about position and outlook. I am sure, that in our past election, both candidates had the necessary skills and gifts to do the job.
That is an interesting response.
Egalitarianism is the conviction that, when taken as a whole and when properly interpreted, the Bible teaches the equality of female and male in the world, the church, and the home.
Does Galatians 3:28 state a universal theological principle (“there is no longer male and female,” nrsv), while 1 Timothy 2:12 (“I permit no woman to. teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent”) is an accommodating response to a specific congregational problem? The answer is one of hermeneutics, not inerrancy.
Does not Genesis 1:28 (“God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘. . . [H]ave dominion,’ “[emphasis added]) lay down a basic principle of equality, in light of which any subsequent passages seeming to give woman a subordinate place need to be understood? The answer is one of hermeneutics, not inerrancy.
Does not Ephesians 5:21 dictate that the statements that follow must be seen in light of mutual submission? Again, hermeneutics, not inerrancy. They are two different, though related, matters.
Yes, it is possible to hold to inerrancy and equality—and I do. (Dan Kent, OT Professor Emeritus of Southwestern Seminary)
As usual, Bart makes some good points, especially about Dave Miller. Yes, the SBC president is expected and invited to preach in many venues. For example, when I taught at Southern Seminary, the president of the SBC would preach in chapel at least once during his tenure, and I assume those presidents did at the other SBC seminaries, also. Beyond that I recall that a few years ago we had a discussion on this blog about electing a pastor from a small church to serve as SBC president. More than one writer mentioned the difficulty of serving as president without a big staff to support the effort. In April I spoke to one of the staff members at Bellevue Church, where our past president, Steve Gaines, serves as pastor. He said that Dr. Gaines would probably be relieved to pass on the responsibility because it demands so much time and energy. Now, could we elect a woman to serve as president? Of course, we could, and maybe we should do so in order to affirm all the women who serve faithfully in our churches. However, if we did elect a female, then we should allocate money for a support staff and adjust our expectations about the president’s speaking schedule.
“. . . if we did elect a female, then we should allocate money for a support staff and adjust our expectations about the president’s speaking schedule.” I think there is wisdom in that statement.
I think size of church should not matter. I know some amazing godly pastors in small churches who may have better skills than a pastor in a large church, and capable lay leadership to assist him in his duties as president. They may even have been in business, which could be helpful; but mainly their godly wisdom and the fact the fact they can connect well with your average Baptist pastor.
True.
Jay,
A previous post established that the office of president of the SBC was really only a figurehead position as it is not established by Scripture or the BFM and so it was beyond those parameters ( just like our seminaries and entities). However someone else pointed out that be that as it may the convention convers leadership upon the office and as such they come within the operational sphere of the Scriptural qualifications. Consequently, the office should be held by a male who meets the pastoral qualifications. I think the logic is holding up so far.
But wait. The SBC has identity issues. Theologically It struggles with trads and cals, politically with progressives and conservatives and an odd animal called a moderate. The convention is self-conscious about what it says and does and fearful about its future so every decision it makes must be evaluated on how it will impact its various factions. Now complementarians and egalitarians have made their way to the surface of the identity struggle. Whew who can keep track of who is ahead and who is winning in this social media game?
So, here is what will most likely happen. The SBC will most likely have a woman president. The inner ring will downplay her preaching, leadership role in order to calm the minority who still consistently hold to Scripture. It probably will not happen soon but most certainly within the next ten years. The decision to have a woman will be made to sooth the tensions in the convention about women roles in the churches, and as a public relations ploy. Most everyone will be satisfied with the outcome.
Blessings in Christ,
Woody whitt