Especially over the past year or two, I believe we’ve moved in a healthy direction. We’ve started to see more clearly the giftedness of our sisters in Christ, how much we should be honoring their service to the church, and how valuable their contribution is. Not everyone has moved in this direction, but thankfully many of us have, myself included.
The SBC is complementarian in its viewpoint. That’s not in dispute. Our confession of faith says that the role of pastor (elder) is limited to men. Men and women are of equal worth, value, intelligence, competence, ability AND God intends for men and women to function in different, but complementary roles within the home and family.
But over the past week or two, a heated discussion has arisen in response to the fact that a small number of SBC churches were having women preach during their Mother’s Day services. The question has frequently been summarized as “can women preach?” or “should women preach on Sunday morning to the church?” Some have strongly advocated that the only valid complementarian position on that question is “no” and that any deviation from that position is compromising Scripture.
Look, I realize we want to be able to give clear, strong answers to biblical questions. But sometimes in our quest for clarity and planting our biblical flag, we give simplistic answers to complex questions – and in doing so end up creating confusion and division in our wake.
The complexity of this question – what roles may a woman perform biblically within a church setting – is difficult to exhaust for several reasons. Let me address three factors that, I believe, should make us hesitant to make the kind of sweeping prescriptive declarations we’ve seen recently.
1. The vast chasm between the gathered church’s worship in the New Testament versus typical evangelical practice.
Our services do not look like what we read about in the New Testament. Sure, there are some similarities, but there are also major differences. I see indications that venue, seating arrangement, prophesy, length, level of participation were all considerably different than our typical 1-1.5 hour stadium-seating model with very little congregational participation. This should make us hesitant to draw 1:1 correspondence between the way we do church and the way a church service was practiced in the New Testament.
I specifically mention this because of the inclusion of prophecy in New Testament worship. Women did prophesy in the church service in New Testament times. If your view of Christian worship prohibits women from speaking (1) to the entire gathering (2) in a meaningful way (that includes exhortation and imperative verb form), then you should certainly stop pretending that your view matches the New Testament.
2. The important next question: Well then what can she do?
Within the complementarian framework, I see vastly different possible views on how women should biblically participate. I tried to imagine and describe a possible spectrum below. I’m sure some might order them differently or make adjustments, but I hope this will be sufficient to illustrate my point.
1. Women should not speak at all (awful and unbiblical, but we should admit does exist)
2. Women can read Scripture
3. Women can lead in public prayer (plus #2)
4. Women can give testimony (plus #2-3)
5. Women can give exhortation (or basically do anything except preach “the sermon”)
6. It’s ok for a woman to occasionally preach “the sermon”
I know there are SBC churches all along this spectrum. Our confessional document does not draw boundary markers between any of these viewpoints. And we should not try and draw parameters more narrow than the BF&M on this.
I see a glaring omission from the vocal opponents of women preaching. Where is their “yes”? What are women allowed to do, in their view, and why do they choose to draw their line at that specific place? If they believe women can lead in public prayer, are they actively pursuing that on a regular basis in their local church? (Instead, what I believe happens in many complementarian churches is they never make a firm commitment anywhere on this scale and thus are overall very hesitant for women to play any meaningful role. At least define the boundaries and then set women free to fully operate within those boundaries.)
We’ve heard from our complementarian sisters over the past year or two that they don’t have a problem with pastoral offices and some pastoral functions being limited to men. But what they also want from us is an even louder “Yes!” in other areas of ministry where we believe they can serve.
3. Does the answer change when the setting changes?
Another problem with laying down the prescriptive commands we’ve seen is that they ignore the fact that the answer changes depending on the setting. Should women preach? “No!” They say. Well, what about in a women’s conference? “Oh, yeah, well it’s ok to preach there – to other women… sure.” Well, what about on the mission field, like Lottie Moon and many others have? “Well, I don’t really like it, but I guess if there’s no men around…” Not exactly the kind of thundering pronouncement we started off with, right?
Examples could be multiplied. Are we JUST talking about Sunday morning worship? Sunday night? Wednesday night? In-home small group teaching? Are they prohibited from teaching and preaching or only preaching? What defines that difference? (Search in vain for a biblical line of distinction, mind you). Does the number of people in attendance matter? The length of the speech? At a conference (not a church) where men are present? Certain topics are allowed and others off-limits?
Here’s my point.
This is a big, complex question. And it deserves better than the simplistic treatment it’s received recently. As Southern Baptists we are going to come up with different answers to a lot of these questions. The bigger question for us is will the fundamentalist spirit win, with some of our leaders drawing ever-narrowing circles of cooperation, or will we put down the divisiveness for unity and cooperation?
Thank you, Mr. Hobbs.
Should we stop all disagreement for unity and cooperation?
And what is disagreement but a form of divisiveness?
It is prudent to draw lines.
Especially in first order levels of doctrine, but also in second order ones as well.
That drawing of a line can be and often is called being divisive.
If so, then some divisiveness is necessary.
Out BF&M2000 draws lines. It excludes certain beliefs and upholds certain doctrines at the expense of other doctrines.
Each of us should draw lines somewhere, as we understand the truth. And this line drawing, by its nature, is exclusionary.
This is true especilly if you are a leader in the church, as you then have a greater responsibility. But it also means you must be diligent in learning all you can about the subject so that where you draw the line, and thus where you exclude others, is as true to the Word of God as possible, as of course you understand the Word of God.
Let us not disparage those who would draw lines at a different place than we, but rather through prayer and sound reasoning seek to convince them about a better and truer spot for that line.
Brent,
Would you please expound on this statement and share with us the tests to which you refer?
“Women did prophesy in the church service in New Testament times. If your view of Christian worship prohibits women from speaking (1) to the entire gathering (2) in a meaningful way (that includes exhortation and imperative verb form), then you should certainly stop pretending that your view matches the New Testament.”
Also, do you mean to suggest that those who disagree with what you assert here are “pretending” to ascribe to New Testament teaching regarding ecclesiology?
The text is 1 Cor 11-14. For interpretive questions see D.A. Carson here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080306183449/http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter6.html
Thank you for sharing Dr.Carson’s writing on the issue…my question however was respectfully offered to you based on your article and your comments.
Also, you did not answer my second question. Are those who hold a different interpretation in “certain need” to “stop pretending” to hold to sound interpretive analysis of NT ecclesiology?
Prophesy was(is?) sharing a word from God.
How do you know women prophesied in church services in NT times?
Mike, I think “church services” may be a little anachronistic, but certainly there were recognized gatherings of various kinds. 1 Cor 11 says women prayed and prophesied to the church. See article above for further exegesis if you have questions.
Brent,
Thanks for the answer.
Will check out the link later.
All I see in chapter 11 is the admonishment that when a woman prophesies she should have her head covered.
And when she prays she should have her head covered
Nothing about the location.
1. Please read the article before commenting further, because it deals exactly with what you said. 2. Where else do you think these women are praying and prophesying considering the context of chapters 11-14?
Okay. But let’s say it is in the assembly.
Prophecy isn’t teaching. It’s saying what the Lord is saying. Kind of like reading from the Bible today. Reading from the Bible isn’t teaching or preaching though teachers and preachers do so read.
A Scripture passage that exhorts is God exhorting through His Word. It’s God, not me, God -not an elder who is reading it, and it’s God exhorting -not the woman who is reading it, or who is speaking through prophecy.
Brent not going to enter this discussion. It certainly is not a new debate. We were dealing with this when I was a pup at SWBTS (66-69). It was also a major issue of contention in the CR. I say this because I want to respond to your comment “Please read…” Carson’s comments are very good and certainly reflect a line of thinking, but it is not the final word. Volumes have been written on the debate with a lot of scholarly disagreement. Perhaps I missed your intent here but, in this respond to mike, it sounded to me as if he should not speak again because Carson’s article will solve the issue if he reads it. Perhaps I misunderstood. Blessings my Brother.
Both this and Adam Blosser’s article are helpful and I appreciate both of your efforts. There will doubtless be many opportunities for sensible and civil discussions on the subject.
Excellent blog post, Brent. What was most telling was your statement about the fact that we don’t really resemble the church from the NT any longer. Telling and sad…
Amy,
I don’t resemble my one year old self either.
The early church had many problems and divisions. It had false teachers and heretics.
In that sense we do resemble the early church.
Come to think of it, I have two arms and legs just like I did back then.
Some things change and some stay the same.
There is a vast difference between the early church and the NT church of Acts.
A5 year old can feed Themselves and talk and get into mischief. Thus there is a vast difference between them and a newborn.
My point Amy is that there is no way you can be just like you were when you were young and new.
And the church can’t be that way either. Besides the ever present fact that all things in this world are subject to the curse and thus are breaking down and getting worse, only an individual born again is growing in holiness even as his body and life are breaking down.
The Church also grows in knowledge and understanding even as it, as it is made up of human constructs is also breaking down. For we still sin.
Finally the NT Acts church was not perfect and had its problems. Our enemy was attacking it through imperfect humans. And as it grew numerically it had more imperfect humans in it and thus a greater field for our enemy to inflict trouble in it.
Many blessings to you sister.
I could explain the vast differences but then you might learn something from a women. Can’t have that – intentional sarcasm. And no I am not the Amy below.
Some churches do not even trust women to help collect the offering or distribute the elements of the Lord’s Supper! I love the bluntness of your question: “will the fundamentalist spirit win”? The wind blows where it wills, and the Holy Pneuma is about to blow through the SBC.
Sandy, it isn’t a matter of trust. It is a matter of role. Complementarian means there are things women do, and there are things men do.
In my view, the fact that some churches have extended and even heated discussions about whether women can collect the offering shows how deeply many of these questions are based in tradition rather than Scripture.
Agreed, but lets not conflate discussions. The ongoing discussion your article addresses is about preaching… Not about taking up an offering.
Brent, the answer is obviously going to be different for churches in different settings. Some churches will be comfortable with women on the Board of Trustees of the church, while others will not. Also, an example could be the Finance Committee or Personnel Committee. Some churches will be fine with this because many of the women in the congregation have jobs and have skills in these areas. Some may be accountants, or lawyers or in corporate management.
On the other hand, there may be a church in a more rural setting where the few women who work are in more traditional jobs like teaching and nursing and none have any interest in being on the Finance Committee or being on the Board of Trustees. This is fine, too. However, the problem arises when members from each type of church tries to get the other to conform to their polity.
The SBC has over 40,000 churches with congregations which cover the whole range of education, income, ethnic and rural/urban, suburban classifications. It’s virtually impossible to expect that large number to be in total agreement on the six classifications you described. It’s more important that each church to decide given scripture and their setting, what is the most effective way to reach their specific community.
For example, a church in a well educated, suburb like Plano, TX or Brentwood, TN may decide that it’s not effective to reach their area if women are told their only place of service is in the Nursery and Children’s Sunday School. At the same time, the church in Kudzoo, Mississippi or Rocky Top, TN may see no reason to include women in any positions of influence/leadership on the committees and the people in the church and the community they are trying to reach have no problem with it, either.
Thanks, David, I think what you’ve described is the same point I was trying to make… that SBC churches are all over the map on those six options and that’s ok, even though there are some options I personally disagree with.
I think it is important to understand why prophesy is allowed for women but preaching is not. Deu. 18:18 says God puts His own words in the prophet’s mouth. To hear a prophet prophesy is to hear God communicate. Therefore the man or woman is not communicating, God is speaking perfectly through them during prophesy (Deu. 18:19). Preaching/teaching is very different. The person is communicating about God and His word. Preaching/teaching is authoritative by its very nature. Students are under the teacher. This is why women cannot preach or teach theology to men.
So, TJ, just curious. What subjects can a woman teach a man? Church history? Archeology? Philosophy? Greek syntax? Counseling? English literature? Math? Where do you draw the line and why?
BTW I’m preaching through a Daniel right now and one of the best commentaries is Joyce Baldwin in the Tyndale series. You think it’s wrong for me to read that?
You seem to be more focused on the “what” while I’m more concerned about the “where”. All things taught in a church should be theological. For this reason I’m not comfortable with a woman teaching men in this context. Church is a unique place of accountability and order/structure. We should strive to be New Testament churches, and Paul is very clear in 1 Timothy 2:12. University is not church. However, a Christian university has some difficult questions to sort through. I’m willing to see more gray here because of the setting. I personally have no problem going to school with Presbyterians. That said, I’ll never join a church that baptizes babies. Church has higher accountability. The more a parachurch organization mimics the church, more caution is called for. Worship in chapel is more like church than math class. I’m less willing to go to the mat for parachurch situations, yet I draw firm lines when a church meets under the authority of God’s word with the elders. God is very particular about structure. If anyone doubts this, please read the book of Numbers. God is a God of order. We dismiss New Testament church structure at our own peril.
In regards to books, I’m pretty open. I have never heard anyone say after reading D.A. Carson “He is my teacher”. There is a personal touch required between teacher and student. We can learn about someone, learn from someone, but to claim a person as a teacher requires relationship. People would call me a fraud if I said “D.A. Carson was my teacher” if I never knew the man or sat in his class.
This brings me to the discipleship deficit in the present time. People have lost site of the personal relationship between teacher and student, pastor and layman. Mega churches are often a monstrosity of consumerism. If a preacher/an elder does not know your name as well as have a general understanding of your life, you have no undershepherd. This is not how God intended church to be. The church is to provide pastors. If a Christian does not have an ordained elder who knows their business, they are being robbed by their church. The fact that such relationships are so rare brings us to the crisis addressed above. The battle is whether celebrity women will join our celebrity pastors on the big stage. Everyone has a hard time understanding why women can’t convey information as well as men. Yet if pastors properly demonstrated masculinity and provided loving security to their flock, the question would answer itself. Masculinity is uniquely enabled by God to provide security. Women simply cannot do this. Yet since so many of our churches are disorderly bastions of consumerism, we don’t even know what we are missing. While many are encouraging the secular metoo movement to penetrate the church, our real crisis is a lack of men. Test scores, earnings, marriage rates, and a host of other issues all point out the problem. The American culture, as well as the church, desperately needs more men.
“Everyone has a hard time understanding why women can’t convey information as well as men.”
As a complementarian woman, statements like this make it very hard to engage in any serious and sincere dialogue about this topic, whether I agree with you or not. That statement was not complementarian, it was hurtful and had nothing to do with the role of women in the church. It appears to be a blanket statement on the capability of women in general. This may not be your heart, or your intent. So, Gentlemen, I implore you to use your words respectfully and choose your words wisely. Hopefully, when we breathe, pause, and consider what we say and how we say it, the message and intent will be heard and understood graciously, even when there are disagreements.
Amy,
I cant answer for TJ, but let me seek to explain what I think he is saying.
Here is a scenario:
The pastor writes out his sermon for Sunday morning but wakes up with laryngitis and cant speak.
His wife steps in his place and reads the sermon to the congregation.
She can read. She gives the same exact information her husband would have given.
She can speak well. She seks the same words he was going to say.
Is God pleased?
Hi Amy,
I apologize for not being more clear. My point was that women can convey information as well as men. Which is why “everyone” has a hard time understanding the restriction of women in this role. Masculinity has unique traits that enable men to bring certain characteristics to a job. Providing security is one of them. (The same is true for women. When I watch a woman who is an excellent homemaker, I simply marvel. Its has a mystery to it. Men cannot do what women do.) Since God made the genders different, there are innate strengths and weaknesses in us both. These differences are better suited for some jobs rather than others. Masculinity is a job requirement for being an elder. Just as femininity is a requirement for being a mother. Both are incredibly important jobs where our sex brings strengths and limitations. This is very logical. If men and women are different, then these characteristic differences will naturally be brought to bear on many different aspects of life.
I fear that there is a complementarianism of no consequence being introduced into the evangelical world. These people confess there are gender differences, but anytime the implications/consequences of their differences are expressed, these same people balk. To say that men and women are different is a significant claim. If true, and the Bible says it is, there will be consequences. Is a person truly a complementarian if the concept never effects real life? Echoing Paul in Romans 9:6, not all who are of complementarianism are complementarian.
TJ, you don’t get to define people you disagree with out of complementarianism. Stop it. That’s one major problem with Owen’s article.
Second, like Owen, I’m not sure why you find it so hard to find an example of godly roles for women outside of “homemaking” and being a mother. Both of those are important, godly roles, but there are many women who are single or widowed or don’t have children for one reason or another… some who work outside of the home… The nearly exclusive “homemaking” emphasis reflected in Paige Patterson/Mark Driscoll complementarian movement back in the 2000’s is widely rejected today, and rightly so.
We also appreciate commenters using a full name (not a firm policy but if you’re going to engage regularly, we believe the accountability of knowing who you are in real life is healthy). We often don’t bother about it with occasional commenters, but since you’ve commented several times in this thread, I thought it worth mentioning.
Update
Comments policy can be found here: https://sbcvoices.com/about/
A real email address will be required before any more of your comments are approved.
Brent,
In the spirit of of furthering your stared goal for healthy rhetoric and dialogue… Might you reconsider – or at least explain – your intentions and meaning when you stated in your article that those who interpret certain passages differently than you (presumably differently than DA Carson since you stated that as your go to interpretation ) are “pretenders” when it comes to new testament ecclesiology?
I’m happy with what I wrote and think it’s perfectly understandable. However, I do reject your inaccurate quote and mischaracterization of that sentence.
Well Brent,
I’m happy with what I commented and think it’s perfectly understandably a paraphrase of your sentence. However, I do understand why you’d reject my accurate characterization and paraphrase your sentence.
Now, With the tit for tat snippiness out-of-the-way…
TJ, I agree with you regarding the fact that God created differences between men and women and ordered the church with those differences in mind. Further, I agree that the dearth of “men being men” is a crisis both in the church and in society.
I would kindly ask you though to clarify the meaning and intent behind your comment that women are incapable of explaining things as well as men?
“Everyone has a hard time understanding why women can’t convey information as well as men.”
I’m sorry, can you explain this statement? I’m afraid you didn’t convey that well. May I suggest you put your masculinity card on hold until you correct this situation? Am I making myself clear? Did I convey that well?
Sorry, this is about as seriously as I can manage to take you after such a ridiculous statement.
TJ,
When should a church meet since that is where you would draw a firm line?
Curious for now.
If we want to follow the New Testament model, meeting on Sunday is a must. Keep in mind that the local church is a covenant community. Paul tells the local church to put a person out of fellowship in 1 Corinthians 5. The church community is a unique gathering of believers who pledge to live life together in Christ. They can meet as often as the body wants, but gathering on Sunday is a must. . . if we want to follow the example of the Apostles given in Acts.
TJ – Thanks for your response. My problem is… if it is wrong… it is wrong. Situational ethics is not acceptable is it is wrong.
My church meets on. Friday’s. We just started that again after a year of meeting on Saturday’s.
If you are right and I must be meeting on Sundays then I’m in sin. I am interpreting your use of “must” to mean right, not wrong.
What would you advise me?
TJ — In Nepal, many churches meet on Saturdays since that’s the typical day off. In the Muslim world, believers often meet on Fridays for that same reason. Whether they gather on Sunday specifically is not a test of the church’s faithfulness and identity.
Beth, I asked my questions because I serve in the Middle East, in a Muslim country. Sunday is the first day of the work week. Friday is norm. Saturday is rare but happens. I just cannot see where we “must” meet on Sunday.
Thx for your comment. Got to get ready for church.
TJ, I think you’ve made excellent points in this comment.
I’m interested in what part of Numbers you would have me focus on. Serious question, I would love to go back and read it. I enjoy reading those books. Thank you.
Hi Kimberly, please see what I said above. Hopefully this clarifies things a bit. I would read the whole book of Numbers. Note the Levites and priests. There are three groups of Levites that are to do certain task and not others. Priest do other tasks while Levites are forbidden. The Lord is quite particular about all of it. The text shows a seriousness about structure. We, as Americans, seem to approach church with a very lackadaisical attitude. I think it is safe to say that God cares as much about gathering and worship in the New Testament as He did in the old. The world is very chaotic and disorderly. The Church should have a contrast by following the structure instructions in the new covenant. As I said earlier, we disregard these commands at our own peril.
Hi TJ. I’ve read the book of Numbers multiple times though I’m not sure how much we should look to that to determine whether women should preach. The structure of the OT priesthood was very different and how one became a priest as well as their functions was also very different.
Now surely some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill out of love… the others out of selfish ambition, not sincerely. What does it matter? Only that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed!
So I wonder, if Paul can rejoice when anyone preaches the true gospel regardless of motives and even when it’s intended to harm him, why do yall have such an issue when women with good motives out of love for Christ preach the true gospel?
3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your[a] faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,[b] do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. Romans 12.
According to Acts 18 a woman taught theology to a man. Now, we can obviously draw some distinctions here. Prisicilla was not teaching Apollos in the context of a church worship service. But, to make the blanket statement that women cannot teach a man theology would contradict what we see in scripture. The other scripture people forget is that Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied. It doesn’t specify to whom they were prophesying, but you cannot do that in a vacuum. Without specification the default context for this activity was in the church setting. Granted, this verse is vague enough to be cautious about planting a flag on it, but it does add another instance for consideration.
Not only do we read of Philip’s four daughters prophesying, but in Acts 2 when Peter is responding to the charges that the apostles are drunk (v. 13) as others witness the effects of the Spirit’s coming on the Day of Pentecost, he affirms that what is transpiring before their eyes is a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy from Joel 2:28-32. Specifically he mentions in Acts 2:17 that your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. He repeats that thought in v. 18 where he says “Even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit and they shall prophesy.” Many biblical commentators observe that the spiritual gift of prophecy in the NT wasn’t restricted to “foretelling the future” but was a broader category of inspired speech–forthtelling the word of God–or what we commonly refer to as preaching.
Yeah, I am just not sure it is so because a commentator said so.
And really, if they are not foretelling, then it seems like it really isn’t prophecy. I mean all the prophets I can think of were foretellers and forthtellers. If you only get half of the abilities, it seems like you shouldn’t get the whole title.
Also, would you be comfortable calling either your men or women preachers “prophets” who will prophesy to us this Sunday morning? I will be honest. Most prophets I can think of usually did not quote or speak from Scripture while prophesying because as best I can understand they were getting direct revelation from God at the time.
Is there a difference between Pastoring and preaching?
How shall they hear without a preacher?
Is evangelism left to the men?
As far as 1 Cor. 11, I think she prayed silently and prophesied to the kids by saying… “if you don’t behave, I’m gonna tan your hide”.
Levity can be good.
Is this one of those “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” conversations? I believe God loves His daughters just as much as He loves His sons and that we are all to preach in season and out of season.
Brent, I agree this is a detailed and complicated question. My question to you is, given the spirit of your article, if your church decides to allow women to preach, and mine doesn’t, will you label my church a “fundamentalist” church that is backwards and anti-biblical?
No, Mark, I wouldn’t. In fact, my position from the above list is #5, so my view is that it’s best for a man to give the sermon during Sunday worship. I wouldn’t follow the churches that had women preach, but I also don’t feel threatened by them or feel the need to criticize them.
If your church said women shouldn’t be allowed to give the announcements, well, I might say that’s backward.
interesting
If you really want to stick with only what the Bible says, you have to note that there is no where in scripture that prevents Women from being “Pastors” (Shepherds). Only Elders/overseers have a gender qualifier.
The noun “Shepherd” is only used once in the NT when not referring to Jesus as our shepherd, in Ephesians 4:11- …”He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers. (No gender qualifiers in this passage).
Elsewhere, the verb is used, as Elders are supposed to “shepherd” the church, but that is an activity, not a title.
I have only come across one church that made this distinction, and had several female “Pastors”, but reserved the overseeing “Elder” office for men only. It was an interesting take, to be sure, but I appreciated their attempt at separating scripture from tradition.
For most of our contexts, since we equate pastor and elder, I would agree that those offices should be men.
Just a side thought,
-Andy
Most Baptist churches believe pastor/elder/overseer are the same role. It’s normally other traditions where they will make a distinction between ruling elders and teaching elders.
I realize that. I’m just pointing out that the biblical evidence of such is not abundant.
In Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5, both texts, all three terms are used interchangeably. I believe it’s a solid exegetical conclusion that those terms refer to the same role/office.
Most definitely
All good points. This discussion is not new. The issue of women preachers was one of the main issues during CR. Perhaps an investigation into the issue as addressed during CR and today might be helpful.
The issue in the CR was not about women as “preachers” but as pastors. I know some people use the terms interchangeably at times but it’s important not to confuse those questions. The BFM does not allow women pastors, it does not comment on “women preachers.” Let’s make careful distinctions to help the conversation stay productive.
Brent having pastored during the entire CR and attending every SBC annual meeting during those years I am not sure the rank and file distinguished between women “preachers” and “pastors”. There was much controversy as to whether a female IMB missionary was giving “report” or “preaching” when she was in a pulpit on Sunday. Also the Oklahoma Baptist Convention in annual session (1993 I believe) entertained a motion to disinvite Anne Graham Lotz from speaking at the Evangelism conference. IMO the CR was much about women preaching.
Brent a side note…During an Oklahoma Evangelism Conference, W.A. Chriswell was preaching against women preaching. He said roughly if you allow women to preach you might as well toss out the Word of God. With that he tossed his Bible over the pulpit and it landed in the third row of the auditorium. The has little to do with the discussion but is one of my favorite memories.
There are times when it is right to divide. We divide over baptism and lots of other things. I understand that some SBC churches may allow women to preach. However, it still is not right. And I wish blogs like this one were not supporting women preaching.
Also, we do not just say that men can preach. In most baptist churches, only a very few men can preach. In some churches, only one man can. That means we are preventing all women and almost all men from having this role in the church. Yet all of those men prevented from preaching are not coming forward to say that they are not allowed to serve God meaningfully. Because the truth is preaching is not the only meaningful way to serve God. You are not reduced in personhood if you are not allowed to perform this task within the church.
I can understand how a church may decide that on mother’s day that they would like to allow women to do something meaningful. I just don’t understand why churches have to make it something that women shouldn’t do. Are those women not doing meaningful stuff the rest of the year in the church? Why can’t we just recognize them for those things?
Curious that you would say this blog is supporting women preaching. The three articles we’ve posted on this issue are all written by authors who disagree with having women give the main sermon on Sunday morning. Might should read a little more closely.
The two I read seemed to be in favor of it. Might should write a little more clearly.
They also came across as a little judgy and condescending. I know there’s a tradition of that within the SBC. I hoped you guys and gals were not going to be part of it.
I will also say that if I have read 2 of 3 blogs related to this subject and I think you are pro women preaching…it seems like the fault is on your side. I came in thinking you guys would not be for it, and after reading you, I think you are. So that is not the conclusion I expected or desired.
I haven’t been waging a war anywhere on this topic. I just heard about it the other week, and then read a couple of your pro-women preaching posts. 🙂
Adam and Dave specifically stated their positions. I intentionally didn’t because my view wasn’t pertinent to the question of how the SBC cooperates across these differences. You’re the one who’s made incorrect assumptions.
Incorrect assumption?
So, Brent…are you saying that David Griffin is wrong and that you do not support female preaching in worship services?
Your article clearly reads as though you do…as you call those who oppose it “they” and “them” and such….one example is when you intimated that those who think not are “pretending” to ascribe to New Testament ecclesiology.
Tarheel, You make a valid observation. As I read the comments and Brent’s response I am somewhat confused as to where he is.
Based on what you did and did not say. 🙂
But I am not the only one who made incorrect assumptions. You assumed everyone was going to understand your position as you argued for the opposite position, and you assumed everyone was going to read the prior articles or know they existed.
To all three of you: my position is #5 above. I didn’t say it in the article. You assumed I was promoting #6. I purposefully wrote this article from a neutral position on the question, and believe I succeeded. It says more about you than it does me that you assumed a particular view – and that you feel like you need to nail down someone on their position on this in order to assess the validity of their argument. Now that my view is clear to you, I trust we can let this part of the thread rest.
If women are to preach they should be qualified but there are only qualifications for men elders/preachers in the Bible therefore it seems women are not given that role.
Serious question. What verses should I look for about if only elders can be preachers? I probably won’t get to the NT in my bible reading for another month or two because I don’t want to get sidetracked, but I want to keep my eyes open for it when I do get there. Thanks.
I would say our church falls in at #6, unashamedly. We restrict the office of elder to men. That’s all.
Brent, interesting post,.
The SBC has decisions to be made as the culture shifts around us.
As a grandfather to three smart granddaughters, I truly want all options open to them, ( that the New Testament allows).
I thought of the fourth chapter of Ruth as I read your post, twelve people meeting at the gate of the city to decide Ruth’s future, who could buy her, who would marry her, how many children she would have going forward, of the twelve people deciding this woman’s future, Ruth wasn’t one of the twelve, all men as an aside.
But I see the complementarianism vs egalitarianism debate walking side by side and step for step, with SSM debate ( we are witnessing the destruction of women’s athletics because of gender fluid ideals).
So not to pick at nits, but all this begs the question, do you feel the N.T. Is clear and decisive on the gender issues, SSM issue?
Is Paul’s teaching clear on this? Or does culture have a say in this as well?
My seminary professor told us that ultimately every doctrinal/ethical question is a hermeneutical question (a question of biblical interpretation). He was right about that. Some years ago I taught a course at Southern Seminary called Formation for Ministry. It was an introduction to ministry course. One day a student raised the question about women serving as pastors. I explained my position to the students. If you believe (as I do) that the qualifications for service as a pastor in 1 Timothy are applicable for all times and places, then males only should serve as a senior pastor. However, if you believe those verses are culturally conditioned, then there is no gender restriction. Another example is how we interpret 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. In these verses Paul instructs women to cover their heads during worship. Most conservative interpreters would say that passage is culturally conditioned, and it is no longer necessary for women to wear a head covering to worship. I might add that when I was a boy in the 1950s, women wore hats to church. Now, they usually do not.
Another point (I’m unsure of the validity or not) is that people view the phrase husband of one wife as an idiom.
The Greek text be literally translated, “a one-woman man.”
I’m reminded of checking out at a local Chinese restaurant a few months back. A woman came in and vented something along the lines of “Sorry I’m late, I’ve been under the weather lately.” To which the cashier replied “oh yes it’s been so cold and rainy.” 🙂
[…] Hobbs, for whom the title of this article is not written, wrote about Cooperation and Complexity on the Question of Women Preaching. His final […]
For the record, I am all for women preaching, shepherding, pastoring, discipling, teaching anyone, anytime, anywhere.
I remember Anne Graham Lotz preaching at the South Carolina Baptist Convention in the early 1990’s. She was dynamic, anointed and outstanding in deportment. It was too much for some of my pastor brothers to absorb. Word must have traveled quickly to Oklahoma to put the kabash on her invite.
For those who are interested in digging deeper into this matter, I found the following chapter on “Preaching in the Gathering of the Early Church” very helpful https://www.jstor.org/tc/accept?origin=%2Fstable%2Fpdf%2F10.1163%2Fj.ctt1w76wv6.10.pdf%3Frefreqid%3Dexcelsior%253A692ac18602d2db4d5d31daddad63e6cd%26fbclid%3DIwAR08B6n4wUlvygAlcXPNaQ2TnFyfGCqHKr29vjbiSZQP9yD2BWWKJgft52k
Brent,
After finishing the link you so generously gave us that explained DA Carson’s position, I wish to quote from part of the conclusion he offered:
“More broadly, a strong case can be made for the view that Paul refused to permit any woman to enjoy a church-recognized teaching authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11ff.),{46} and the careful weighing of prophecies falls under that magisterial function. This does not mean that women should not learn: let them ask their husbands about various aspects of these prophecies, once they return home. Why should the Corinthians buck not only the practice of all the churches (verse 33b) but also the Scriptures themselves (verse 36)? Are they so enamored with the revelations that they have received that they dare to pit them against the authentic deposit found in Scripture and in the apostolic tradition? And if they feel they are merely interpreting that tradition under the promptings of the Spirit, are they not troubled to see that all the churches have translated the same texts, and the same Gospel, into quite different ecclesiastical practices? Are you the only people the word of God has reached (cf. verse 36b)?{47}”
And soon after that…
Third, the major objection that has been set against it is that it seems inconsistent for Paul to permit women to prophesy and then to forbid them to weigh prophecies. But the objection carries little weight provided that such prophecy does not have the same authority status that the great writing prophets of the Old Testament enjoyed (whether or not such authority was immediately recognized). Third, the major objection that has been set against it is that it seems inconsistent for Paul to permit women to prophesy and then to forbid them to weigh prophecies. But the objection carries little weight provided that such prophecy does not have the same authority status that the great writing prophets of the Old Testament enjoyed (whether or not such authority was immediately recognized).”
In other words, women may prophecy but were not to publicly evaluate either prophecy or teachings.
And that is a far cry from them giving sermons or preaching to the entire assembly.
They could repeat what the Spirit gave them to utter but were not allowed to exegete it.
SBC Family,
I tried to read as many comments as I could before my response and posting. My conclusion is two folded.
1) We are at a fork in the road of identifying our churches traditions and culture. It is difficult for us on a national level to grasp that we are living with a multi faucet society. I live in rural GA. The deacons do the public prayer and take up the offering here at my church. Why? Tradition and the mindset of this is one form of servanthood. Is this wrong or right? It’s neither. We have lost sight of “the weaker brother issue.” If one church feels one way and another another way, be receptive of their tradition and culture. As long as a church body is faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ, then we should praise the Lord and be praying Philp.1: 6!
Brothers and Sisters, we must not allow our mindsets and traditions be a stumbling block unto the body of Christ. I know because I am the chief of all sinners in this department. I had last Sunday people come pray at the altar during the choir special. I was stun at first then I realize tradition was hindering me from seeing the Spirit move. We would be wise Christians to heed the calling of 1Jn.4:1-6.
2) Be rejoiceful over the many women who have had a great impact on the cause for Christ. I am so thankful for all the Godly ladies who impacted my life. They have( and still) giving wisdom to be a better man of faith. The Bible shows over and over again the testimonies of women and their faith. The only point the bible is clear on as Brent wonderfully points out is the role of bishop/pastor/overseer. Why are we so guilty of trying to “split frog hairs” over allowing women to be used by God? I have no problem with women serving in many areas of ministry personally. I have learn from many of them. As long as she doesn’t have the title of Senior Pastor, I am fine with it. However, remember the “weaker brother clause”, if I had someone who struggle with the issue I would do my best to be sensitive. Does that make me a “jerk”? I would hope not, because I would loving walk with my fellow sojourner in the faith and guide them to grasp the fullness of the faith and role God has given to us all.
Remember there is great wisdom in learning to turn the other cheek, because it is this act of love that will one day cover the multitude of sins. Let us be found showing Christlike love for each other, and pray for unity’fellowship under the Lordship of Godly wisdom!
Blessings!
Thanks for the comment Paul. God bless you in your ministry.