This post is a follow up of my last post on the issue of First Baptist Church in Decatur, Georgia being ‘disfellowshipped’ from the Georgia Baptist Convention. Wade Burleson has written again on the topic, this post is my response.
First of all, my post is not going to be nearly as long as Wade’s, but I encourage you to go and read his own post. He is a great writer and I believe he deeply loves the Southern Baptist Convention. Wade and I disagree on this issue, but I greatly respect his opinion and I also thinks he makes a lot of great points. Wade’s main thesis is that it is absurd to think that a church must affirm every single tenet of the BFM to remain Southern Baptist and I agree 100%. The SBC should never ask a church to put there theological convictions to the side in order to affirm the BFM.
Here is where I disagree with Burleson. He seems to think that the issue of female pastors is a ‘third tier issue.’ In no way am I advocating that churches must adhere to every tenet of the BFM. I know that Burleson would quickly and happily “disfellowship” with any church that denied the trinity, resurrection of Jesus, and our view of baptism and the Lord’s supper. Now, one could argue that the gender issue is not an issue that is worthy of ‘disfellowship.’ This is where the disagreement comes down to.
Burleson says that gender roles is a third tier issue. Since he believes it is a third tier issue it makes complete sense that he disagrees with the GBC’s decision. I would never “disfellowship” with a church because of a third tier issue, but the gender issue is not a third tier issue. Calvinism is a third tier issue. End times is a third tier issue. The issue of women serving as pastors is not a third tier issue.
Here is what Albert Mohler says in his A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity,
“In recent years, the issue of women serving as pastors has emerged as another second-order issue. Again, a church or denomination either will ordain women to the pastorate, or it will not. Second-order issues resist easy settlement by those who would prefer an either/or approach. Many of the most heated disagreements among serious believers take place at the second-order level, for these issues frame our understanding of the church and its ordering by the Word of God.”
Mohler is right when he says that second tier issues ‘frame our understanding of the church and its ordering of the Word of God.’ The issue of female pastors certainly falls under the category of ‘frame our understanding of the church.’
I cannot get off this because it is the heart of the argument. How important is this issue? If it is a third tier issue then Burleson is right, it is wrong to “disfellowship” with FBC. If it is a second tier issue, then I am right and it is better for the GBC to “disfellowship.” Burleson keeps going on and on about how great of injustice is taking place. There is no injustice going on. There is a convention that feels the gender issue is an important enough issue to “disfellowship” with a church.
Burleson would do the same thing on other second tier issues. Would that be injustice? Of course not, it just makes sense. If a church came out and publicly changed their view of the Lord’s Supper to the Catholic understanding then they would quickly be “disfellowshipped.” If a church came out and said Baptism was necessary for salvation then they would quickly be “disfellowshipped.” Dissent is allowed in the SBC, but in third tier issues. This, I say again, is not a third tier issue.
Here is a quote by Burleson that proves my point:
“FBC Decatur is not being accused of refusing denying believers baptism by immersion. FBC Decatur is being hammered for calling a pastor who is female.”
Burleson makes the distinction between believers baptism by immersion and female pastors. Here is another quote:
“It is evident that some wish First Baptist Church, Decatur to be disfellowshipped because the church has called a pastor who is female, in violation of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. So what. There are thousands of churches that violate the BFM 2000, including mine, in other areas. Why are you singling out FBC, Decatur?”
FBC Decatur is being singled out because they are breaking a theological boundary of a second tier issue. Other churches, probably including yours, that violate the BFM only violate it on third tier issues. We as Southern Baptists are proud to unite together in missions and evangelism. We can unite even when there are disagreements on third tier issues. As you will agree, there must be a doctrinal basis. The line of theological unity must me drawn somewhere. That line is between second and third tier issues. When a church disagrees with the BFM on third tier issues we are proud to unite for missions and evangelism, but once that line is crossed and we now disagree on issues that ‘frame our understanding of the church’ it is time to “disfellowship.”
Excellent points. I am at a loss for understanding how any church would want to remain in the SBC after calling a female pastor. If the SBC were to affirm some doctrine that I did not agree with and felt as strongly about as egal’s do, I’d leave the SBC so quick it wouldn’t be funny.
Joe Blackmons last blog post..Book Review: The Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding Jesus
It would seem that the apostle Paul considered this issue to be above a third tier issue. …As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that… Read more »
Matt, I understand your point and do not necessarily disagree. However, when you refer to second tier and third tier issues, I believe you may be mistaken. In the preamble of BFM2K, it specifically says that these are the “essentials” of our faith. Thus, the preamble of BFM2K has rendered its entire content as 1st tier. While we may disagree as to which doctrines are essential or non-essential, the statement has deemed itself to be a statement of baptist essential doctrines. Thus, those who would subdivide BFM2K into second and third tier doctrines seem to go against the intent of… Read more »
With Mohler’s theological triage, I understood the 1st tier are the essentials of being called Christian (i.e. the Trinity)
http://www.almohler.net/commentary_print.php?cdate=2005-07-12/
Les, I understand what you are saying, but I think you are misunderstanding the words of the preamble. Dr. Mohler, for one, was on the committee that wrote the BFM 2000 and he clarifies many of the doctrines in the BFM as 2nd tier issues. I think it can easily be asid that Baptism is an essential to our faith without being a first tier issue. It is an ordinance given by Jesus and it is what seperates us as Baptists, but one does not need to believe in Believers Baptism by immersion in order to be saved. First tier… Read more »
Stan: Are women allowed to speak in your church?
Bill: not in the manner in which Paul is addressing.
Stan McCullarss last blog post..Going Dark
Excellent post. Excellent insight. I agree with you 100%.
David
Stan: By that you mean they are forbidden from asking questions in church?
When did the SBC vote to accept Dr. Mohler’s triage as the final hermeneutic on BFM? I must have missed that one.
Matt,
Dr. Mohler’s comments are fine, however, he is not the entire committee. Are you saying that the preamble statement is wrong?
Les
Les Puryears last blog post..Reasons Why Abortion Is Not Murder
Matt,
One other thing, if you believe the Preamble statement does not mean what is says, then who decides what are first, second, and thrid tier issues?
Les
Les Puryears last blog post..Reasons Why Abortion Is Not Murder
iMonk,
I merely brought up Mohler’s triage because burleson referred to the issue as a ‘third tier issue.’ My argument is that Mohler is right in making the issue a second tier issue rather than a third tier issue as Burleson does.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..What Makes a Baptist?
Les,
I do not think it is wrong I think it is wrong to say the word ‘essentials’ means ‘first tier issues only.’
I have written a post for SBC Voices before saying that no one decides what doctrines belong in which tier. I said that we all, as Evangelicals, ought to discuss the issue and we need to come to our own conclusions. I conclude female pastors to bea second tier issue, therefore I think the GBC made a good move.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..What Makes a Baptist?
Bill: do you have a point to make?
Stan McCullarss last blog post..Going Dark
Why are we debating about female pastors? I thought Baptist were setteled on this issue. I think the question should be: Are we going to change our position or stick to what we know to be true? In the effort to unite for the sake of missions how much common ground must we give up? In the keeping of one feminist church how many conservative, like minded will we discourage? We can’t please everyone, so lets just try to please Christ.
Stan: My point right now is to understand your reading of the passage you posted. Your last response didn’t answer my question, so I assumed you meant that Paul was forbidding women from speaking in tongues or prophesying, which is one way of looking at it. But Paul also forbids women from asking questions in church and I wondered if that was also your understanding and practice (or rather, the practice of your church)
Les,
I think the BF&M was meant to define the “Baptist Faith” – more specifically the Southern Baptist view of things. I don’t think anyone meant to say that believer’s baptism is fundamental to Christian faith – that would be a denial of what we believe.
The BF&M was meant to define the basis of our fellowship as Southern Baptists. It was not meant to be a statement of basic Christian faith.
On the other hand, it is clearly meant to serve as a basis for defining Southern Baptist fellowship.
Dave Millers last blog post..Sin and Forgiveness
Matt, There are other ways to divide up the doctrines. For example, for many years it has been explained as follows. 1. Fundamental / Basic Doctrines. Foundational Christian Doctrines. Examples: Divine inspiration of the Bible, Trinity, Deity of Jesus, Blood Atonement, Literal Resurrection of Jesus, etc. 2. Distinctive Baptist Doctrines. Doctrines that may separate us from other Christian groups. They don’t determine your salvation, but they are very important to being a Baptist. Examples: Believers Baptism by Immersion, Symbolism of the Elements of the Lord’s Supper, Eternal Security, Religious Liberty, etc. 3. Secondary Doctrines. You are free to disagree on… Read more »
very interesting post, i like this sort of discussion
in my opinion the issue of female pastors is a 2nd-tier issue, by which i mean good christians can agree to disagree, but cooperating in ministry will prove difficult. what if a female pastor wants to serve on the mission field? how can churches divided on this issue move forward? plus all sorts of other scenarios, like supporting theological students who are or will be female pastors, etc. etc.
Mikes last blog post..who would you put on arkansas’s mount rushmore of sports?
BFM2K Preamble: “We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.”
Sorry for belaboring the point (and this will be my last comment). Personally, I see no place for anything other than BFM2K being a statement of our essential doctrines. Essentials are first tier. Non-essentials are either 2nd or 3rd.
Thanks for the topic.
Les
Les Puryears last blog post..Reasons Why Abortion Is Not Murder
Les,
“essential to the Baptist Tradition” is different than “essential to the Christian faith.” right?
Dave Millers last blog post..Sin and Forgiveness
Mike,
My thoughts exactly!
I am also waiting for Bill’s question to be answered. It should be interesting.
Cheryl Schatzs last blog post..Adam and his Ms. organ
Enjoying the discussion… we are for the first time at a church that allows female deacons, and though they are not the same position, I’ve always been taught the requirements were pretty much the same. Now, I am having to delve deeper. BTW, what is the answer for the question asked above about women asking questions in church? Or speaking in church? One of my earlier posts here at SBC touched on that subject a bit…. I felt God telling me to stand up in the middle of church and ask prayer for a young man before he deployed (he… Read more »
In the year 2009 that any SBC church would not allow a woman to ask a question in church is extreme. But once again we can thank the CR. Absolute control and power and women must be quiet.
I suspect that even the most conservative of SBC churches do not prevent women from asking questions in church. The answer we will probably hear is that women were not allowed to sit with the men and were shouting questions across the aisle and disrupting the service. There is no scriptural basis for this theory however and from what I understand, little historical basis. It presents a problem of consistency for those who think Paul’s restriction on women speaking in church refers only to tongues and prophecy.
In my opinion the issue of female pastors is a 2nd-tier issue, by which i mean good christians can agree to disagree, but cooperating in ministry will prove difficult.
How would this then agreeing to disagree?
Put me down as waiting for an answer to Bill’s question.
Debbie Kaufmans last blog post..Men: If You Want A Happy Wife…Well Read For Yourself
Bill:
The answer we will probably hear is that women were not allowed to sit with the men and were shouting questions across the aisle and disrupting the service.
To what question was that an answer?
Stan: That is the answer I have heard to the question of why Paul forbids women from asking questions in church.
>”another second-order issue” Where in scripture do we find “another second-order issue”? There is no such thing. David R. Brumbelow above described “Fundamental / Basic Doctrines,” “Distinctive Baptist Doctrines,” and “Secondary Doctrines.” Again, there are no such things. There is only doctrine, better known as truth. All truth is from and of God. To reject truth (doctrine) is to reject God. “Fundamental / Basic Doctrines” seems to be otherspeak for these are truth. “Secondary Doctrines” seems to be otherspeak for we don’t know if these are true. Come on. Baptists have been around for 300 years and Christians for 2,000.… Read more »
I must of missed something…
What question did Bill ask that everyone seems to want an answer?
Matt Svobodas last blog post..What Makes a Baptist?
Bill:
Was that the answer you thought you would probably hear from me?
Or was there another question asked?
Matt and I may be in the same boat.
Stan McCullarss last blog post..Going Dark
What I am saying is that I dont have a clue what question you all are talking about. I would be happy to try to respond if someone would tell me what the question is…
Matt Svobodas last blog post..What Makes a Baptist?
sallie, as far as women speaking in church – at least in the corinthian situation – was apparently a matter under the rubric “honor & shame.” same thing with men and the issue of covered/uncovered heads. corinth had a busy, booming, and profitable worship scene, with priests, priestesses, prostitutes, and all kinds of rituals and such. i think women speaking and men with covered heads addresses ways that people in the churches at corinth were trying to bring in the local flavors of pagan worship & local ways of being honored, or “one-upping” people at church, just like everywhere else.… Read more »
Timothy, My comment was not saying some things are true and some are not. Rather, some things are essential and some are not. Fundamental / Basic Christian Doctrine is essential to Christianity. Distinctive Baptist Doctrine is essential, or at least viewed as very important to being Baptist. Secondary doctrines can be disagreed on without it affecting Baptist fellowship and our working together. I believe the Baptist Distinctive Doctrines are true, but I do not doubt someone’s Christianity if they don’t believe them. They are viewed, however, as what Baptists believe. They distinguish us from other Christians. I believe the Premillennial… Read more »
Stan: Not you in particular.
Matt and Stan,
Its this question…
Stan: Are women allowed to speak in your church?
And apparently Stan already knows what you are going to say
Thank you John-Michael… It is about time someone answered me!
I am going to write a post in the next week or so answering that question and issues like: should women be youth leaders? Married couples teaching coed classes, etc… I hope to look at what Scripture actually DOES and DOESN’T forbid women to do.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..What Makes a Baptist?
I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the question. The question was about Paul’s prohibition on women asking questions in church. I asked the question and also supplied a very common (lame, imo) answer that women were shouting questions to their husbands during the service. Absurd, given the status of women at that time. Paul prohibits women from speaking, and praying without a head covering, without qualification. Some insist that the context dictates taht Paul is forbidding women from speaking in tongues and that a woman’s head covering is her hair. I don’t buy that but it’s a common interpretation. But the… Read more »
Bill:
I’m not sure why you feel it necessary to answer your own question and call certain other opinions lame and absurd but it doesn’t seem to be very polite.
Stan: I asked the question, but I don’t think anyone (including me) answered it. I did supply answers that I have heard before that in my opinion were unreasonable (if you don’t like the term “lame”). I do hold fast to the term absurd to describe the notion that women were shouting questions across the aisle to their husbands. There are absurd ideas in the world and it isn’t impolite to acknowledge it. I think it is important to be polite to people, but ideas, notions, or theories need no such protection.
I think we should bring a motion to exclude the churches that were really the cause of females thinking they could be ministers – beginning with the Sandy Creek Baptist Church and every church that descends from it which, of course, will take in most of the churches of the SBC. While we are at it we might well imitate the Romanists who dug up the bones of John Wycliffe, burned, and then sprinkled them on a stream. Yes, we could do that, if it didn’t make us sick. The current junk about females in the ministry has little or… Read more »
Thank you Dr. James Willingham, for sharing this very pertinent and enlightening perspective.
i personally do not believe women can be the preaching ministers of a church because of 1 timothy chapter 2. although i believe dr. willingham makes some great theological points, and i respect his well-reasoned comment, it is simply not convincing because, in the end, it doesn’t deal with 1 timothy 2. like i said, i’m open to change, but in order to change i need the following: 1. someone needs to demonstrate that in 1 tim. 2 paul, although appealing to the OT and NOT culture, meant something else besides what it sounds like, which is that he is… Read more »
Mike, The explanation that you are looking for is found in a 4 DVD set called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” It comes from a conservative position that treats the Bible with respect and as authoritative in that the Bible was written fully inspired including the words and grammar used. Recommendations for the DVD set along with a preview clip and purchase information found at http://mmoutreach.org/wim.htm and product is also available at Amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Women-Ministry-Silenced-Set-Free/dp/B000FW4N60/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1235150881&sr=8-2 I think you will find exactly what you have asked for in this set and I think you will find it very thought-provoking.… Read more »
I can and do appreciate Mike’s perspective on the issue. After all, it took me about 28 yrs. to come to the point where I would even consider changing my mind. The point made by the puritans, esp. Matthew Poole, is that God does not suffer a woman to teach or usurp authority over men (I Tim 2) except….then Poole named off all the prophetesses of the Old & New Testaments as well as other women duly note as exercising some function normally reserved for men. In essence, there are two reasons, namely, the same rule of exception on which… Read more »
The Scriptures directly prohibit a woman preaching or teaching a man.
Since they do, we must separate from those who do it. It’s a matter of obeying God’s Word.
Scripture does not say to separate from a woman who does not discriminate against teaching men. This is going beyond the scriptures.
Cheryl Schatzs last blog post..Adam’s sin imputed to Eve?
Dear Bro. Foltz: If we follow your advice then we must dismiss Sandy Creek Church and all of its offspring (which pretty well covers most of the Southern Baptist Convention). I mean, if they just had women doing such things that was a violation of the rule. But dear brother God blessed them rebels with the First and Second Great Awakenings and the Great Missionary Movement. Has he blessed us with the same? I am praying for one as you are. Godly women are no threat to godly men and vice versa. The sad thing I heard was how the… Read more »
dr. willingham, with all due respect, your answer is basically that you know better because you’ve been around longer. i respect and appreciate your wisdom, but you haven’t dealt with 1 tim. ch. 2, as i mentioned above. again, i would love to say that women should serve as teaching pastors. it would save evangelicals a lot of face in our culture today and make so many things easier. my problem is that 1 tim. ch. 2 to clearly prohibit women from serving as teaching pastors in the church context. in the end, we may have to respectfully disagree, having… Read more »
oh, and another point. there is nowhere in the NT where a woman is a pastor. some basic points: a.) appealing to women prophetesses and judges in the OT is a fallacious argument b/c 1 tim. 2 isn’t dealing with OT leaders . . . it’s dealing with women serving as teaching pastors in a church context b.) 1 tim. 5:2 is part of 5:1-2, which deals with age group relations in the church. i don’t believe “eldresses” in a formal sense is an appropriate interpretation c.) there is a distinction btwn. elders and deacons in the church. a major… Read more »
Mike,
Hang in there, Brother. You are speaking the truth. I would also say that women should not be Deacons, either. The qualifications for a Deacon and his wife are also found in Timothy.
It’s always amazing how people want to change the Bible according to the culture that they’re living in at the time. Sometimes, we have to stand out in the crowd as Christians.
David
The Bible forbids women ursurping authority over a man anywhere in the local
Church iE. Pators, Deacons, trustees. No woman is to teach men in a Bible class.
David:
Should we separate from churches with deaconesses?
Do you think the authors of the BFM2K were bowing to the culture when they specified pastors and deacons as the only 2 NT offices but only specified the office of pastor as being restricted to men?
To all who replied to my post re: eldresses: One feels immense pressure in taking a position which vis-a-vis produces anxiety as to whether there is trust in Holy Scripture. Point two of Mike’s first reply to my statements needs to be addressed first. Mike, you stated: b) it means those with opposing positions have different views of scripture and authority. My answer is simply this: I believe the Bible from cover to cover is the verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God. Period. That means it is authoritative (authority in the healthiest sense of the word and also authority… Read more »
bill, i think the authors of the BFM2K were trying to be cautious because of ongoing scholarly discussions about women and deaconship. 1 tim. 3:8-13 deals with deacons (right after dealing with pastors). after giving qualifications in vs. 8-10, vs. 11 addresses “women” (gunaikas). most translations render “women” as “their wives” (NKJV, etc.). of course, the very next verse says deacons must be the husbands of one wife, so that may end all discussions. but of course later in the letter (ch. 5) much is said about relationships among the people in the church, specifically older men relating to the… Read more »
Along with DR Willingham, I too long for, and am praying for An SPIRITUAL AWAKENING. We must have it soon, or our Beloved Nation, will go down the
Tubes.
Mike: I suspect you are correct. For what it’s worth, our church is led by a plurality of (male) elders and we elect male and female deacons. Let’s face it folks, if your church recognizes and affirms women in any type of servant role in the church, she’s a deacon, whether you call her that or not. God is not fooled by titles.
dr. foltz, i just realized you said above that the bible forbids women being deacons. would you mind if i ask where? i’m not familiar with a passage saying that. i suppose someone might say that deacons have authority, so that’s why women can’t be deacons. i would simply answer with this: the bible doesn’t describe the task of deacons – what it discusses is their character! 1 tim. 3, for instance, gives character attributes and qualifications without ever saying “a deacon is supposed to do this.” of course, some might argue that acts ch. 6 shows deacons serving at… Read more »
Bill,
There’s a huge difference in someone being a servant in the Church, and in someone being ordained, or set apart, to be a Deacon. Now, of course, Deacons should be servants in the Church. And, women should serve in the Church in many ways. But, when someone is set apart for the office of Deacon…then, they are set apart for helping the Pastor/Elder to serve the Church, settle problems, and be an example to the Church. It is an office. The requirements are told to us in Timothy.
David
“In the preamble of BFM2K, it specifically says that these are the “essentials” of our faith. Thus, the preamble of BFM2K has rendered its entire content as 1st tier. ” Hogwash. Les you need to read the entire preamble. It is a self negating document allowing for the full autonomy of any group of baptists in crafting their own statement of faith. The BFM is a eunuch. The corpus of the SBC is founded in the Constitution and By-Laws, and not the BMF. Any SBC body can craft a statement of faith that rejects every jot an tittle of the… Read more »
Where are the duties of the deacon articulated in the NT? Where is the command to ordain deacons in the NT? When a woman is elected by the church body to fulfill a particular role and position within the church, she is a diakonos. As I said, God isn’t fooled by titles.
God isnt fooled by titles. That sounds cute, but titles do mean something to God. God is the One Who told us to use titles. Pastor/Elder/Bishop. Prophet. King. Deacon. Apostle. Priest. Judge.
Hummmm….looks like God likes titles, because they mean something.
David
David: Nice try, but I didn’t say God didn’t care about titles, I said He wasn’t fooled by them. I’m still waiting to see the specific instructions as to the duties of NT Deacons.
Bill,
When it comes to female deacons the duties are to resign immediately. Is that what you are looking for?
Matt
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Signs and Miracles in the Gospel of John
Matt: Obviously the framers of the BFM2K don’t share your view. My question was about where the duties and responsibilities of a deacon are explicitly spelled out in the NT.
duties are spelled out in the name… deacons=servants.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Signs and Miracles in the Gospel of John
To whoever is interested: The framers of BFM2k do not necessarily represent the views of all Southern Baptists and not even of the founders. Shubal Stearns carries a whole lot more weight than they do. After all perhaps the majority of the SBC churches would be traced back to him and Sandy Creek Church and the one I preached in on Feb. 8 & 15 which was originally one of the campuses (arms in that day) of Sandy Creek when Stearns was pastor. Even the educational effort of the SBC, vide the seminaries begins with Basil Manly, Sr., who was… Read more »
Dr. James,
You are right, the BFM2k doesn’t really represent the founders. It would be much more Calvinistic if it did!
Matt Svobodas last blog post..Signs and Miracles in the Gospel of John
Matt,
Any idea of which of these two things are given more emphasis in the teaching of the Bible: 1) Women shouldn’t be pastors or 2) the unit of the church?
Bradley
Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God
What do you mean by the ‘unit’ of the church?
Matt Svobodas last blog post..“Jesus Descended Into Hell”
oops … i meant UNITY
Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God
I would certainly say that unity is given more emphasis in the teaching of the Bible, but not at the sake of sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is just as emphasized in Scripture as unity.
Does that answer your question?
Matt Svobodas last blog post..“Jesus Descended Into Hell”
Yes, but it raises another question :: If that’s your reason for believing that egalitarianism is reason enough to split a church (i.e. because it compromises sound doctrine), you would have just as much reason for believing that arminianism is reason enough to split a church, for I assume you would agree that Calvinism is sound doctrine. The question, then, is how you might now qualify your reason to avoid this dilemma by differentiating between different kinds of sound doctrine, some of which are worth dividing over, and other of which are not. For it seems to me that you… Read more »
By “Calvinism” I only need to mean any part of Calvinism that you believe, not necessarily all five points.
B
Bradleys last blog post..Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Justification :: The Twofold Sentence of God
Bradley, I am not sure if you are aware of Mohler’s three tier system. It goes something live this: tier one- essential beliefs(salvific doctrines) tier two- Non essentials, but important enough issues that would mandate where one worships- Baptism, Lord’s supper, etc. tier three- Non essentials that do not mandate where on worships- End times, Calvinism etc.. Women pastors is a second tier issue, an issue worthy to decide where you worship and who you ‘cooperate with.’ Calvinism is a third tier issue. I am Calvinistic, but I will happily serve with an Arminian. I only use Mohler’s system because… Read more »
I see, But that takes us back to my first question: Which does the Bible emphasize more? 1) that women should not be pastors or 2) the unity of the church? For if the Bible, as you have admitted, emphasizes the latter more, then it should be higher on the “tier” list, or at least as high as complementarianism. I find it odd, therefore, that the doctrine of the unity of the church does not have a prominent role on our doctrine lists, or in our systematic textbooks, and that you would be willing to compromise the unity of the… Read more »
Unity is important, but it isn’t necessarily a doctrine within itself. Unity isnt in the tier list. Unity is a characteristic of the church, not a doctrine of the church. I think that is important to note.
Complementarianism is not just about women being pastors. It also encompasses the roles in marriage which Scripture gives A TON of attention too.
Matt Svobodas last blog post..“Jesus Descended Into Hell”
“Unity is important, but it isn’t necessarily a doctrine within itself. … Unity is a characteristic of the church, not a doctrine of the church.” I don’t know. Can we really say the church is unified in light of the fragmentations that took place during the Pre-Reformatin, Reformation and Post-Reformation era’s? It’s a miracle, I think, that we baptists are able to cooperate on the level we do with all the factions within the SBC. (i thank God for the level of unity we have, and that’s one of the reasons that I became a Southern Baptist :: unity is… Read more »
Bradley, There are few people I like to dialogue with more than you. You are challenging and you make me think through it all. Your grace in your conversation is also greatly appreciated. You make a great point about sanctification being a characteristic of a believer and yet it is in every systematic theology. I will retract my argument of unity not being a doctrine, as long as we realize it is an objective doctrine. When we look at sanctification, unity, etc.. we must realize these are subjective doctrines that often depend on experience. There are objective realities in these… Read more »
You folks sure like to waste a lot of elexctronic impulses. Dr. Finn has called attention to the fact that 2000 BFM has people who disagree with it over the issue of closed communion. Such being the case, the issue of women in ministry is a moot question. Have fun. Theological ferment was going on among the Baptists in the 1700s when they achieved their greatest successes, and perhaps it will be so again while we argue over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin or was it whether women can perform any ministry in the… Read more »
Matt, Thanks. I also appreciate your tone in dialogue, and your evangelical ecumenism (EVillage) that is open to hearing lots of sides on any given issue. :: “There are objective realities in these doctrines, but the way they work themselves out are purely subjective.” :: Valid point, but I’m not sure exactly how you intended it to bear in our discussion, given the fact that the objective reality that men and women (although equal in value) are designed for different roles also works itself out subjectively. “one holy, catholic church” was understood in the time it was written to not… Read more »
Sirs: This whole discussion is flawed and serious lacking in informed knowledge needed for perceptive and critical discussion. Consider the appeals to the holy catholic visible church. That doctrine is suffers from being utterly out of balance. That doctrine lead to persecution and the Inquisition in the 1200s. Having done research in all 2000 yrs. of church history, I had nightmares especially about the horrors that were visited upon the Waldenses, and they were only one of many so-called schismatic or heretical groups through out existence of the Christian Faith. The reason for the invisible church is simply that we… Read more »
Galatians 3:28 was an eye-opening revelation to me when I discovered that verse when asking GOD to reveal to me the role of women in this Age of Grace. It helped me to see that GOD is no respecter of persons. While I generally submit to male leadership of those who are genuinely called of GOD, and especially my Christian husband, it helped me to see that GOD could use me in teaching positions in the church that just might have men in attendance, when there were no men willing or qualified to teach Sunday School Classes. Small churches often… Read more »
Ruby, Thanks for sharing your story and convictions. I once had a student ask me about Galatians 3:28. He said, “In Galatians, it seems Paul is seeing the big, more complete picture, which to me would kind of cancel out what Paul says about women in ministry in 1 Timothy 2.” First, I shared with him what we believe about Scripture, ‘no verse cancels out another one.’ Then, I showed him what Galatians 3:28 is saying in context of the rest of the passage, that is it speaking purely of salvation. Any other exegete of Galatians falls short because if… Read more »
A week ago this past Sat., I almost quitted this earthly realm. Such interruptions will give one pause for thought. God’s word to me is precious as I was converted under a literal fulfillment of two verses (Jesus standing at a door knocking (very hard on an atheist) and the Lord opening the closed door of the Heart (Rev.3:20 & Acts 1614). One of the most difficult things in the world is how to understand what God is saying in and by the words of Holy Writ. Over 50 yrs have been dedicated to trying to understand what He is… Read more »
If you want to see more on this subject, then click on the link below. This will take you to a Scriptural view of the role of women and Pastors and Deacons.
http://fromthehillsandhollers.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html
And if you want to see more on this subject from an opposite point of view than volfan007 check out the link below that takes the view of what the Apostle Paul would say if he were alive today.
Oops here is the link http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/05/13/paul-women-pastors-8/
Cheryl,
Wow… what a claim. “what the apostle Paul would say if he were alive today.”
He wouldn’t say exactly what he said when he wrote most of the New Testament? God’s word doesn’t change.
Matt,
You are right. The Apostle Paul wouldn’t say anything different than he said in the bible. He would just correct our wrong views of what he said. God doesn’t contradict Himself and Paul didn’t either. God’s Word does not change nor was there a new “law” created in 1 Timothy 2. Paul always upheld the OT and he did not add to its message. Paul’s fellow workers who worked right along side him are proof that he treated male and female followers of Christ as equal workers.
Blessings,
Cheryl
Matt,
And, therein lies the problem with feminists and thier attempt at twisting the Scripture. You have hit it on the head. We cannot change the Bible to fit our culture of today.
David
Cheryl,
“Paul’s fellow workers who worked right along side him are proof that he treated male and female followers of Christ as equal workers.”
Amen… And I will always treat male and female followers of Christ equal. I will also honor God by training men and women to serve in the appropriate, biblical manner. Paul kept equality and yet held men and women to the biblical teachings. It is too bad cultural christians can’t do the same.
The problem is when the culture of the world has convinced the church that the bible supports the world’s way. The majority of the world’s culture of our day keeps women restricted in their education, their right to hold property and their right to follow God without their husband’s approval. The view that God approves of having a male mediator between God and women is not the view of Paul or the view of Jesus. It is a cultural view for sure but it is not the Christian way. In contrast Paul was a wonderful example of a culturally biased… Read more »
Matt,
“And I will always treat male and female followers of Christ equal. ”
And will you listen to a female follower of Christ as she preaches the message that God has given her? Jesus turned the church upside down by giving the very best message to the women first. He did not restrict them but sent them to their brothers in Christ. Or is because you don’t read material from a woman? How then do you treat male and female followers of Christ the same?
Have you read the article? If not why not?
“The majority of the world’s culture of our day keeps women restricted in their education, their right to hold property and their right to follow God without their husband’s approval.” This argument might work if we lived in part of the culture that restricted women. It is a ridiculous argument when it is used the way you just did. It is not a coincidence that Egalitarianism gets popular after Feminism rises. What is amazing about Scripture is that it is counter cultural here in America where Feminism is at its height and it is counter cultural in the Middle East… Read more »
I value them equally. I read good material from men and women.
The link is nothing that I haven’t already heard many, many times. Doug, was probably the worst example of a comp, Paul was kind of a jerk, and yet the arguments were the same.
Cheryl,
To get back to the point of the post… I obviously disagree with women being pastors, but that does not mean I think it is a salvific issue. An autonomous church and convention are within there right to disfellowship with one another. There is no wrong being done by the GBC by disfellowshipping with FBC, Decatur.
Matt, The fact is that we live in a small part of our world where Christianity has done much to free women. Where Christianity is not a major influence, the women have little to no rights. That is the majority of the worldview. Once cannot use our small world view and ignore the majority view of the world. “This argument might work if we lived in part of the culture that restricted women.” The argument certainly does work as you said in the culture of the world since women are without a doubt restricted. Even in our own culture women… Read more »
Matt, “I obviously disagree with women being pastors, but that does not mean I think it is a salvific issue. An autonomous church and convention are within there right to disfellowship with one another. There is no wrong being done by the GBC by disfellowshipping with FBC, Decatur.” Paul disagreed with Barnabas about John Mark. Even when they had a split, they did not disfellowship from each other. Paul needed faithful men in his ministry and he was unwilling to accept John Mark who had previously abandoned the mission. Faithfulness is key to the ministry work and Paul would need… Read more »
Matt, “Doug, was probably the worst example of a comp, Paul was kind of a jerk, and yet the arguments were the same.” No, not at all “Doug” was just trying to be faithful to the text. He has a good heart and cannot see past his own blind spots. “Paul” was not a jerk but one who tells it like it is. Sometimes he did that because men had hardened hearts by their tradition. If you read through the interview from the first one on, you will see that Paul is typically Paul. He speaks with boldness and yet… Read more »
Well we will have to agree to disagree about Paul and Doug. It is quite arrogant to ‘speak as Paul’ as if you and other Egalitarians understand him better than comps. What we do know is what he said in 1 Timothy 2 and other passages. I am content with hearing what God has already said through Paul rather than having made up conversations. “Paul disagreed with Barnabas about John Mark. Even when they had a split, they did not disfellowship from each other” You are comparing apples and oranges. I would not of disfellowshipped either, but notice that they… Read more »
Matt, “It is quite arrogant to ’speak as Paul’ as if you and other Egalitarians understand him better than comps. ” It is just another tool to help people to clearly see the contradictions in their own position. I can accept Paul without any contradictions. I have yet to see comps do this. By the way I was a comp most of my life. It was until the Lord took me out of my own prejudice against women that I was freed to serve anyone without fear. “Paul did disfellowship with those who preached a false gospel and I would… Read more »
“I can accept Paul without any contradictions.” This is another arrogant statement. Obviously, comps believe that accept Paul without contradictions. You say you have never seen one and I could easily say the same about Egals… 1 Timothy 2 and an Egal interpretation of Galatians 3:28 is a clear contradiction, but you obviously say it isn’t. How about we stop with the arrogant statements about the other side. “All I ask is for those who think they know Paul, to revisit Paul in context and answer “Paul’s” questions. I had to face those questions and the answers myself and it… Read more »
“He did not hold back women from teaching for his benefit or for the benefit of the body of Christ.”
Cheryl
“I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man”
Paul
You dont see a contradiction? Lousy hermeneutical gymnastics are what account for Egalitarianism.
Matt, “This is another arrogant statement. Obviously, comps believe that accept Paul without contradictions. ” Do you not see this as a contradiction? It isn’t arrogant to say that you can believe Paul without contradictions but it is arrogant to say this as an egal? This is prejudice and a judging of the heart which we are not supposed to do. “1 Timothy 2 and an Egal interpretation of Galatians 3:28 is a clear contradiction, but you obviously say it isn’t.” Well apparently you haven’t read my exegesis because if you had I would ask you to show me where… Read more »
Matt,
““I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man”
Paul
You dont see a contradiction? Lousy hermeneutical gymnastics are what account for Egalitarianism.”
This is removing the verse out of the complete context. Paul did not say this verse in isolation. Paul gave the end result of the prohibition in verse 15. Without the beginning and the end, people are apt to twist the hard passages of scripture anyway their heart desires.
Individual verse hermeneutics without a care for the context has resulted in many people taking on false doctrine.
Personally, you folks get too excited, when cooler heads will prevail. We egalitarians are not quite so lacking in intelligence. If you don’t consider that we are all equal in a sense as the people of God, then consider that we are called the family and the children of God. IF A CHILD IN A FAMILY IS LACKING IN SOME ATTAINMENT, THE PARENT WILL IMMEDIATELY TAKE ACTION TO ALLEVIATE THE DISTRESS THAT THAT CHILD’S LACK CAUSES. THE OTHER CHILDREN MUST DO WHAT THEY CAN TO RAISE THAT CHILD’S ESTEEM. WE CALL IT AGAPE LOVE, FOLKS. I keep saying that Morgan… Read more »
Cheryl,
Thanks for the dialogue, but I am done with this conversation. The contributors at Evangelical Village have debated this issue for over 1,000 comments and I have heard it all. We disagree on the issue, but that still doesnt change the fact that the GBC is fully within their right to disfellowship with FBC, Decatur. It doesnt matter if we agree or disagree with their decision to disfellowship… The great thing about being Baptist is that we are autonomous and can choose to fellowship and disfellowship with whoever we’d like!
Matt, “The great thing about being Baptist is that we are autonomous and can choose to fellowship and disfellowship with whoever we’d like!” Which verse does this one fall under? True brotherly love is required as followers of Christ and we are taught to live at peace with each other as far as it is possible with us. To live outside of this peace over a secondary issue of faith, I am sure hurts the very heart of our Father God. If you are okay with that, then so be it. I feel great sadness. And I am not even… Read more »
“To live outside of this peace over a secondary issue of faith, I am sure hurts the very heart of our Father God. ”
Cheryl,
It only makes biblical sense for a Baptist and a Presby to not go to the same church.
Matt,
The issue is one of disfellowshipping is it not? This is what I was talking about that hurts the heart of our Father God. Are we allowed to disfellowship one another over secondary issues? The scriptures do not allow for this cutting apart and disfellowshipping of other brothers and sisters in Christ inside these churches over secondary issues.
” The scriptures do not allow for this cutting apart and disfellowshipping of other brothers and sisters in Christ inside these churches over secondary issues.” If my Baptist church became Paedo-baptist I would disfellowship with them because it would be my belief that they have a wrong view of the ordinances. It wouldn’t make biblical sense to worship in a church that I felt had the wrong view of the ordinances, which is a secondary issue. The same goes with female pastors. The SBC and PCA do not fellowship with one another in a local church setting because they disagree… Read more »
Matt, I think you should check your word usage. Disfellowship (according to dictionary.com): (in some Protestant religions) the status of a member who, because of some serious infraction of church policy, has been denied the church’s sacraments and any post of responsibility and is officially shunned by other members. I have had the privilege of ministering to former Jehovah’s Witnesses in person for sixteen years as I led a support group for ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses. (I have never been a JW myself but have much love and compassion for them and want to lead them to Christ). Let me tell you,… Read more »
Well, if you read the post it should be pretty clear that when I say disfellowship I merely mean that the GBC is fully within their right to stop cooperating on a denominational level with FBC, Decatur while at the same time extending Christian brotherly love.
Sorry if I was not clear.
Dear Matt: It would only be fair, if Decature might suggest that no one is pure in this matter as the first Baptist Eldress of Sandy Creek Church and Assn. movd to GA with her husband. I refer to Eldress Martha Stearns Marshall who, when her husband was arrested by authorities for preaching, began preaching herself and won one of the officials to Christ, a man who became a noted Baptist minister in GA & SC. I refer to Samuel Cartledge. If there was an eldress at the beginning of GA Baptists, then every church must be in disorder and… Read more »
Matt, You said: “When a church disagrees with the BFM on third tier issues we are proud to unite for missions and evangelism, but once that line is crossed and we now disagree on issues that ‘frame our understanding of the church’ it is time to “disfellowship.” ” Matt, I would recommend that you stop using the term “disfellowship”. I did read your article again to see what I missed and I still got the same idea from your word usage. Perhaps it would be better to pick a term that doesn’t have the common meaning of shunning or putting… Read more »
“I guess I just feel the hurt of those who have been forced out of fellowship as if they are not worthy to work alongside you.”
You seem to be missing what I am saying. This is merely a matter of biblical conviction on both sides. It does not mean one person isnt worthy, but merely that their is a theological disagreement. The same as why Baptist dont worship with Presbys. Baptist dont think Presbys arent worthy, but merely that there are theological differences, it is not a personal matter.
Matt,
There is a big difference between going to a different church and a refusal to worship with a brother or sister in Christ. I can worship with a person who has a different secondary theology. If they accept me as a sister in Christ we are united. Matt, are you united too? Or would you refuse to worship with someone who believes differently in a non-foundational area?
Cheryl Schatzs last blog post..Round 8 Interview with the Apostle Paul on women pastors
I would worship with a Presbyterian, but that doesnt mean I should switch to the PCA. I love them and united under the universal church, they are my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, but because of theological conviction we both choose to be not cooperate on a denominational level.
Am I not being clear? I feel like I am repeating myself.
I wouldn’t switch either but I would cooperate with a Presbyterian and witness to the lost with him/her. How about you?
And perhaps I should clarify that when I asked you if you would worship with someone from a different secondary background than yours, I mean would you worship with them on a neutral ground? Could you knowingly gather together with those who do not believe as you do on the issues of women in ministry for example, and gather with them for one Sunday in a home church and worship with them? Would you witness on the street to an unsaved person beside them as a brother in Christ together sharing the gospel? Or would you shun them because they… Read more »
“I wouldn’t switch either but I would cooperate with a Presbyterian and witness to the lost with him/her. How about you?”
Without hesitating.
“And perhaps I should clarify that when I asked you if you would worship with someone from a different secondary background than yours, I mean would you worship with them on a neutral ground?”
I have done it many, many times. And I have loved it.
The only point I have made on this post is that I would not and the GBC do not have to fellowship on a denominational level.