Originally posted at From Law to Grace on Friday, August 5, 2011
After spending Thursday night in the cool-weather environs of Ruidoso, NM, nestled in the Sacramento Mountains, the heat of Alamogordo has perhaps got me in a contrary mood. With limited time on the internet, I’m just now catching up on some of the latest news in the nation and in our Baptist world at large.
I couldn’t help but notice a piece at Associated Baptist Press written by Norman Jameson, “NC Association ousts church with woman pastor.” As I read the article, I began to think that some Baptists simply lack that which we would all like to receive from one another and most especially from God — GRACE!
A scant two weeks after 28 year-old Bailey Edwards Nelson was called as the Pastor of Flat Rocks Baptist Church in Mt. Airy (the real-life town that was the basis of the fictionalized Mayberry in the Andy Griffith show), NC, Surry Baptist Association — a fellowship of 65 Southern Baptist churches in the area —
voted “overwhelmingly” (about 80%) at a regularly scheduled meeting to disfellowship the church for calling Bailey Edwards Nelson as pastor. Messengers viewed the church’s action as violating scriptural guidelines that they believe reserve the role of pastor to males.
I believe strongly in the autonomy of not only the local church, but the autonomy of the local Association, State Convention, and the Southern Baptist Convention itself. Surry Baptist Association was within their rights to exercise its autonomy in this situation, but I do question the wisdom and Christian charity of autonomous organizations exercising their autonomy in a heavy-handed way with an apparent lack of Christian charity.
Now, at the risk of losing my conservative SBC credentials, let me state that I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that the office of Senior/Lead Pastor “is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” (see BF&M2000, Article VI. The Church). But, the Bible clearly teaches many, many theological concepts and principles, in addition to practical rules for living. Some of the more important theological principles have been codified in the latest edition of the Baptist Faith & Message.
However, what has not been codified in the BF&M2000, but which has been on display in the summary and rather quick ouster of Flat Rock Baptist Church from the local Association, is the lack of grace that has been displayed by the majority of churches within the Surry Baptist Association. Only a week after Pastor Nelson’s first Sunday in the pulpit — on July 10, 2011 — Flat Rock Baptist Church
received a letter from the association’s membership committee citing “concerned pastors” and asking for a meeting to discuss “possible solutions” to the issue they said threatened the fellowship of the association.
These “concerned pastors” were so worried about the grave situation of a woman preaching in one of “their” churches that they had to act within a week of the young lady assuming her pastorate. Don’t want to let her settle in or even meet her before moving to oust the church. If I had to guess, these pastors would probably not be as gravely concerned about obese pastors preaching in one of their churches, as long as that overweight pastor was a man, but I digress!
Billy Blakley — Surry Baptist Association’s Director of Missions was quoting as saying that:
pastors in his association wanted to withdraw fellowship from Flat Rock as “peaceably” as possible amid rumors that an angry motion would be made at the associational meeting.
Moving to disfellowship Flat Rocks Baptist Church on July 26, only 16 days after Pastor Nelson assumed her responsibilities at Flat Rocks, is sure a funny way of “peaceably” withdrawing fellowship. Orwell would be proud. And, by the way, why would someone make an “angry motion” at the Association’s regularly scheduled meeting? Are there pastors or lay folks who have a problem with the sin of anger? A few pastors in the Association who have a problem with gluttony? Anyone who doesn’t properly observe the Sabbath?
And, therein lies the rub. Without knowing what Pastor Nelson believes and without the opportunity to dialogue with her and Flat Rocks Baptist Church (one missed meeting does not a dialogue make), the overwhelming majority of those voting in the July 26 meeting chose to allow their adamant (and apparently emotional) opposition to female pastors to inform their decision to summarily disfellowship this church and pastor.
May be that would have happened anyway. Who knows. But, in a town that was made famous as Mayberry on the Andy Griffith show, the members of the Surry Baptist Association sure could use a reminder of the BF&M codified Biblical principle that Barney, Opie, Floyd, Aunt Bea, Gomer, and even Otis experienced daily from Sherriff Andy Taylor — GRACE!
Howell agreed to repost this at my request. This was the first I’d heard about this action. Thanks, Howell.
Question – Has anyone even paused to ask a very simple question in this dance of the dunnderheads.
Did the church not know about the polity stated clearly in the BF&M? If they did not, why? If they did, then why did they deliberatley and intentional engage in an action that clearly violates that polity?
This is yet another example of why it is important to know what we embrace & why. Then, we align ourelves with those that agree with similar polity. We spearate ourelves from those who do not agree. We pray for one another. We love one another. BUT – we do not play “lets pretend” and wonder why there are such struggles in our hopelesly mixed bag.
Just a thought.
Martha Stearns Marshall reminds us that women in ministry is in the very roots of the SBC, in a day when they did not question the word of God as to its veracity.
In my opinion, you are comparing sins (gluttony, anger) to something that is not a sin, gender. She can’t repent of her femaleness, but we can repent of anger.
Because of their autonomy, the Baptist churches in the area have every right to withdraw fellowship. They aren’t doing so because of the pastor’s sin, but because of the unbiblical practice of the church. Ms. Nelson settling in and their meeting her wouldn’t have changed the fact she’s a woman. Assuming Flat Rocks Baptist Church is familiar with the Baptist F & M of 2000, they took the first step toward disfellowship by hiring a female pastor. The association doesn’t have to know what she believes, beyond knowing that because she’s a pastor, her beliefs are not in line with the B F & M 2000.
If I’m understanding you correctly, I think you make lots of sense. Ms. Nelson is not living in sin by being female (obviously). But the church is not following what we believe to be biblical teaching (on gender roles). That is where I differ from some. This is hermeneutical not hamartiological.
Or walmartological.
wow
Has the Association adopted the BFM2000? Does the Association have in its by-laws that member churches must adhere strictly to BFM2000?
If the answer is NO to those questions, then why should a member church be expected to conform to a document that the Association itself hasn’t bothered to affirm and implement as a tool to ensure such conformity?
“they took the first step toward disfellowship by hiring a female pastor.”
Agreed. Had the church decided to begin baptizing infants I’m sure the association would have acted the same.
Howell,
Could you explain how you see the association as acting without grace or not peacably?
Andrew,
Thanks for the question. I’ve made the argument here and in the comments on my blog about why I believe that the process — both in perception and perhaps even in reality — was what I would consider “graceless.” Showing grace does not mean turning a blind eye to sin or dragging out the process for an indeterminate length of time. And, even if one thinks that Flat Rock’s refusal to attend a hastily called meeting for the purpose of discussing the situation “closed the door on reconciliation” (as quoted from the Association’s letter) and in and of itself was “graceless” (which I do not believe), that still does not give the Association the right to act in a graceless manner.
I think what is interesting in all of these discussions is the presumption that Associations are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the SBC, such that if the BF&M2000 is the official confessional statement of the Convention, that this automatically means that the BF&M2000 is the confessional statement of an Association or State Convention. Perhaps Flat Rock, by its very act of calling a woman as pastor, was saying that they no longer wanted to be a cooperating church within the Surry Baptist Association. Some have argued that very point. I have read nothing to indicate that Flat Rock asked to be disfellowshipped from the local Association.
That due notice of the vote to disfellowship was not given to Flat Rock seems to me to be an indication of a lack of grace. Would announcing in one meeting that a vote to disfellowship Flat Rock would be voted on at a subsequent meeting (regular or special) have been such a burden on this Association? As William pointed out in one of his comments, it has taken longer to disfellowship churches that approve homosexuality than the 16 days that it took to disfellowship Flat Rock.
If that process is what others would define as a grace-filled action that they wouldn’t mind happenining to their churches should they run afoul of the “majority” within the Association, then I would be at a loss to convince anyone that what happened was far from gracious or peaceful. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
The problem might be in the word “autonomy” which comes from “autos” (self) and “nomos” (law). We are not a law unto ourselves especially in local ekklesia/congregations. And yet for the sake or order, Paul gave instructions to the churches he was an apostle (sent one) to.
The problem is that none of us are very good at giving up our right to make self law in our local ekklesia. No…not…one.
You seem to imply in your post that this church would have been blindsided by the association’s reaction. My guess would be that the church knew this wouldn’t go over well and decided to do it anyway.
Sounds like associational pastors did try to have a meeting with the church but apparently it didn’t happen.
Would it have shown grace to drag this out? I’m not seeing it.
I was raked over the coals a little last night for saying this, but I still guess that this action was the final step in a process of divergence. I spent some time perusing the Flat Rock website and got the distinct impression that this was something other than Bellevue, Memphis or First Baptist, Jax hiring a woman pastor.
¿Explicación, porfa?
Explanation please?
I got the impression reading the statement of faith and other things that this was likely a church that was on the left side of the aisle and that it probably was not a huge surprise to the people of the association that a woman pastor was hired.
Again, this was an impression, but there do tend to be certain phrasings and word choices that are unique to conservatives and to moderates.
An impression based on perusal – hardly scientific or authoritative.
Well, the fact that the pastor was a McAfee grad pretty well proves they were left wingers. No conservative church would consider a graduate of that “Divinity schooL” for a pastoral position.
I can name several McAfee grads that are serving conservative Baptist churches still in good standing with both the SBC and GBC.
Stephen Thurston II, son of the National Baptist Convention of America president, is a recent McAfee grad and co-pastor of New Covenant Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago, a megachurch and rather conservative.
Truett seminary grads get jobs all the time in Southern Baptist churches. I know of a Baylor religion major a few years ago who got a job at Prestonwood.
Whatever else, they have no viruses.
Morning Joe had a segment on McAfee today. Article in the news said that McAfee uncovered the largest ever series of cyber attacks on NGOs and companies with all evidence pointing to China as the guilty party. 😉
Care to elaborate on that impression? Left side of the aisle?
The “What We Believe” section seems to be largely verbatim from the BFM 1963, at least the section on Scripture and God.
The “What We Believe” section doesn’t use inclusive language. So that’s a church with a female pastor that uses masculine language to describe God. Not exactly feminist. Definitely not typical of “left-side of the aisle”
The Bulletin page seems pretty typical (as least based on my experience). Service opens up with a praise song and closes with Just As I Am.
The “Links” page don’t mention CBF, BWA, BJC or any other national organization. The church website does link to an abstinence-only crisis pregnancy center though. The church also links to the Baptist Bible Hour devotionals and the Baptist State Convention of NC website.
Sounds like a rather traditional, rural, small North Carolina Baptist church in the BFM1963 tradition. Lots of small churches just like this one that still send their missions money to the SBC. The difference is that this church called a female pastor.
The statement on Scripture was a little different than you will find on BF&M 2000 type, CR supportive churches. There were several other things. Again, it was just an impression, as I stated.
The bulletin did say they were hosting the CBF meeting in the next month so I would say they have been aligned with them for a while.
Rick,
Whether or not Flat Rock was “blindsided” by this action really does not matter. What matters is how the Surry Baptist Association chose to deal with an admittedly difficult situation, one by the way that was a case of first impression in the Association since Bailey Nelson was the first female pastor of a church in the SBA. I suppose we will have to define definitions of “dragging something out.” If Flat Rock was not given notice that a motion to disfellowship would be made at the regularly scheduled meeting, then why not? Wouldn’t basic Christian courtesy argue that someone — maybe the DOM — could have let them know? Flat Rock (and everyone else in the Association) could have been apprised that a motion to disfellowship would be voted on at a certain meeting. If they chose not to contest it, that’s their business.
We have an quarterly Association meeting tonight in our Association. I know that not all of the 25 churches in our Association will be represented. How many of the 65 churches in the SBA were at a July quarterly meeting? I can tell you that if a motion to disfellowship one of the sister churches in our Association was going to be voted on at a meeting, I would want advance notice and I would make every effort to be at that meeting. Unless Pastor Nelson is lying, no advance notice was given to the one church that should have received it. However, I’m sure the “concerned pastors” were aware of what would take place. If you or others can’t see how handling this process better would have shown more grace, then I will not be able to convince you. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
If SBA would have waited until the next meeting to remove them from fellowship would you have been okay with that?
What do you think pro-longing the vote to disfellowship Flat Rock would have accomplished?
Mark,
Hope you had a great anniversary weekend! To answer your first question, I think announcing that a vote to disfellowship a sister church (who from their website seems to have been a member of an Association — probably merged into SBA — since 1905) at one meeting and then voting at a subsequent regularly scheduled meeting or a special called business meeting for that purpose would have provided due process for Flat Rock and would have eliminated the appearance (and perhaps the fact) that SBA acted in a less than grace-filled way. As I have stated to several others, grace does not mean ignoring sin or dragging out a process, but it does mean following a process that is more than fair. Doing the bare minimum in these situations is not good enough.
As to your second question, I think pro-longing the vote (we’ll have to how many days, weeks, or months rises to the level of pro-longed) would have minimized the fall-out (although there would still be some), would have shown that SBA — regardless of how Flat Rock handled the situation — had gone above and beyond what they needed to do to resolve the situation, and would have been more apt to have been “peaceful” as the DOM had suggested. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Fully agree here.
Referencing ‘Andy of Mayberry’ as expressing ‘grace’ brings back so many good memories . . . for a whole generation, that expression of grace was a loved program where ‘solutions’ to problems were meant with humor and kindness, the ‘gentle way’ of grace, more powerful than ‘another way’ that some sought to escape when they tuned in to this beloved program. People still watch it, you know. And it still brings joy. That ‘heart-warming’ that we all felt watching it WAS because of the grace it portrayed.
Andy Griffith attended Haymore Baptist Church in Mt. Airy, and later joined Grace Moravian Church in that town.
His beautiful Christian faith has touched millions of people who still think of an imaginary town called Mayberry as a kind and good place where the dignity of being human was upheld compassionately and consistently.
Does a “Confession” function as a “Creed” in SBC polity?
That would be a common accusation made against conservatives and perhaps some do. But I maintain there is a difference.
Dave,
What does “accusation made against conservatives” mean in this context? I was simply reading your post on the matter and the two to which you make reference. I thought further.
We Southern Baptists have long made an important distinction between “confessions” and “creeds” and how the two function differently. It left me wondering about the nature of voluntary association. If I wish to maintain fellowship and view a confessional document as a non-binding affirmation of faith, then in order for me to not fellowship would require me to voluntarily dis-associate.
I understand how the action of said church could be construed as that very action. I am still left wondering that in the rubric of confession and creed how this works in a voluntary association.
In the Dallas Baptist Association in the 1970’s a church was dis-fellowshipped over glossalalia. No clear confessional statement existed forbidding such a practice even though most Baptists eschewed such practices as passé, or re-defined glossalia to be something other than what Jack MacGorman described in his little book on the gifts of the Spirit.
I do not wish to make a case. I simply wondered how others would work through how the difference between a confession and a creed would function under the historic distinctions Baptists, especially Southern Baptists have made between the two.
I will watch the comments.
My comment was just an observation. One of the most common criticisms of recent SBC life is that we have made the BF&M into a creed and abandoned historic baptist practice. I’ve heard it a million times. Wasn’t accusing you of making that observation but I have heard it made numerous times.
So, when these events come up, how do you respond to such observations?
I would suggest that one difference is in how we do (or should) characterize the church that we chose to break “fellowship” with. In denominations with creeds, the general practice was to consider any church that did not abide by the creed to be heretical. I would suggest that a confessional structure can be used to determine fellowship and cooperation but not the legitimacy of the church. Only in very central doctrines – on Christ, salvation, etc. should the legitimacy of the other church be questioned. I see this as the key historical difference.
Just want to pose a few questions for all of you to ponder.
First, would it not be a sin if one were to not follow God’s calling on their lives? Second, who are we to say what God’s calling is on one’s life. Therefore, who are we to say that Bailey Edwards Nelson is not called to be a pastor? If we say that God can’t call a woman, then we put God in a box. God is much bigger than the box we put Him in.
God does not “call” people in opposition to his word. To say what you are saying, in my mind, at least, puts a person’s subjective sense of call ahead of the teaching of God’s Word.
Subjective leading can never countermand the teaching of God’s Word.
Can Ms. Nelson prove that God called her? We have her word on that. But we have God’s word that leads us to the contrary.
I’m not trying to be hard here, only to respond to the way that you stated things.
In other words God is “bound” to scriptures
Teaching of God’s word from the book of 1 Timothy 2
A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Look at verse 15…women will be saved through child-bearing. How many women would you tell that they cannot be saved because they for whatever reason cannot have children. I’m not so sure any woman (and or man) would truly 100% say that a woman is saved through having children. Salvation, to me anyway, is not based on whether someone can have kids or not. I would say that it is through a relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ that any man or woman gains salvation Yet, that is written in scripture. So what are we to do with that? Our views of this would seem contrary to God’s word. We must read and interpret in the light of Christ, which by the way was excluded from the 2000 BF&M. And I am of the opinion that God is much greater thanwhat is written in scripture and definitely much greater than the BF&M. Therefore, God can do whatever God wants to do. God can change His mind if He so chooses and God can call whoever God wants to call. God is not bound by scripture alone. God is not bound at all!
By the way. v 11- 12 are taken out of their context of the rest of the paragraph all the time! Ms. Nelson might not be able to prove her calling, but neither can you or I. That is a personal thing between God and that person.
God is only bound to scripture in the sense that he inspired it and its teachings reflect his character. You are putting the feelings of people ahead of the authority of scripture, are you not.
God’s word says I must not commit adultery. But more than one married person has said that they felt called by God to be with another person (had just such a person in my last church – for a short period of time).
I’m not saying having a woman preacher is a sin such as adultery. But I am saying that we cannot put our own opinions, feelings and determinations above the authority of the Word.
God is not bound by bad hermeneutics.
I am not putting the feelings of people ahead of the “authority of the Word” and in no means am I reducing the “authority of the Word.” The scripture is inspired by God, but God is much more than the scripture. The scriptures point us toward God, but only gives us a small glimpse into the nature of God. God is so much more. Which is why, I cannot say that God is bound to anything even the Holy Bible. God for me does not fit nice and neat into a box because God surprises me everyday of my life.
Bad hermeneutics would be to disregard vs. 15 It is there too. We can’t pick and choose. Which is why we must read scripture in the light of “the Word” which is Christ.
I’m not trying to be hard either, just have healthy debate!
Justin,
Unless by coincidence (which I don’t believe in) you share the same name as Pastor Nelson’s husband, can I assume that you are Bailey’s husband? If so, would you be so kind as to share with those on Voices how long Flat Rock had been in the Association, had they ever been approached about their theological leanings prior to Pastor Nelson’s arrival (or threatened with being disfellowshipped), and whether or not anyone at Flat Rock was ever informed that a formal vote to disfellowship Flat Rock would be considered at the quarterly meeting? Of course, if you are not Bailey’s husband, you won’t be able to answer these questions.
From what further information I have gleaned, the motion to disfellowship was made by a man who happened to be the Chairman of the Membership Committee, but the motion was not made in his official capacity as Chairmen and therefore was not a recommendation of the Membership Committee. I can’t speak for any other Association, but I reviewed my local Association’s By-Laws today and a motion to “disfellowship” must be made by the Credentials Committee at the Annual Meeting in October and pass by a 2/3 vote of those present. I would assume (but I’ve gotten in trouble for that before) that some procedures are included in the SBA’s By-Laws. That the motion to disfellowship Flat Rock was not made through the Membership Committee is problematic. The way that this was handled has been my major bone of contention with this from the very start. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
If God is not “bound to anything even the Holy Bible,” on what do you base your confidence in any of his promises? Could he decide tomorrow (in our temporal framework) that this whole salvation thing isn’t worth it and just annihilate all of creation in contradiction to all His previous promises in scripture?
Howell,
You found me out and blew my cover 🙂 I googled my wife to see all the noise that she is making and came across this page, so I thought I would jump in for the fun of it. As to how long Flat Rock has been in the SBA, I do not know exactly, but it has been years upon years. Secondly, the wife of the SBA’s DOM was the Flat Rock’s administrative assistant until Bailey was called in which she resigned immediately. This is why we assume (which we all know what assuming does) that this vote happened rapidly. The letter the church recieved which asked the leadership to discuss the church’s decision (which that letter was not sent to my wife, but in email form to several of our church’s leadership members) had a date for a meeting scheduled later in the month of August, which was 2-3 weeks after the meeting was held in which we were kicked out. Once our leadership declined, (which they figured there were no possible solutions other than firing my wife, which they weren’t going to do) the SBA sped the process up. And no, no one at Flat Rock knew that we would be discussed that evening. It was not even on the agenda for the meeting we were told.
Taking my bias out, if I can, regardless of how one views a woman in ministry, the SBA could have done things a bit differently.
And with that I will take my fun and go elsewhere 🙂 It’s been fun!
I checked your IP out of curiosity at the last name. I kinda wondered if you were related, but I figured it was your business to identify yourself if you so wished.
You’ve argued well, even if we disagreed.
Back at ya!
Sorry, Dave. I don’t see how arguing well includes inferring God is not confined to His own revealed word or that a women actually receives salvation through child birth.
Justin,
Didn’t mean to blow your cover. 🙂 I hope that you will not bow out entirely. As more and more information comes out regarding this sad situation, it would appear that Flat Rock was in no way a “troubled” church or one that could have been a ligtning rod in the Association. I conclude that from the fact that the DOM’s wife was employed by the church. If the church was so “out there” theologically, I find it hard to believe that the DOM’s wife would have remained there, even prior to the church calling your wife as its pastor.
You are certainly correct that the Association “could have done things a bit differently.” If they had, this would have been but a blip on the SBC landscape. Ultimately, the Lord will receive the honor and glory through all of this, even though that may not be clear now. On a related note, my wife worked with Hospice in Florida and Virginia for many years. I know that both you and Bailey have challenging ministries. God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Why do you keep pointing back to the Surrey as being the villain in this scenario? Flat Rock declined a meeting and gave the go ahead for Surrey to do what they needed to do. It is not like the church found out two weeks ago that female was being called to the pastorate.
What other theological issue did you have in mind that has you calling into question the judgment of the DOM’s wife to stay employed until a female pastor was called? Churches work through issues all the time, but that is not reason to just up and leave. Sometimes it takes sometimes like the calling of a female pastor to be the last straw. So why not give the DOM’s wife the benefit of the doubt?
Mark,
We will have to agree to disagree that Flat Rock’s refusal to attend the one and only meeting they were invited to meant that they were “giving the go ahead” to the Association to disfellowship them. If you think that disfellowshipping a church without giving notice to that church that there would be a vote to disfellowship them is grace-filled and fair, then we have radically different definitions of those terms. In most Associations, including mine, there is a process and procedure to follow to disfellowship a church. I would venture to say that it would take longer than 16 days and one “refused” meeting to bring a recommendation from a Membership/Credentials Committee to disfellowship a church.
As to the DOM’s wife, there was apparently no issues — prior to when Bailey Nelson’s name came up as a serious candidate for pastor — that would have made this church a theologically suspect moderate/liberal church. I don’t see how I’ve failed to give the DOM’s wife the benefit of the doubt nor called into question her judgment. All I am saying is that she would have been comfortable working in this church before Bailey Nelson was on the Search Committee’s radar. That tells me that this was a solid church in the Association prior to them calling Nelson. Some have made the argument that Flat Rock must have been liberal and pulling away from the Association before the final straw of calling Nelson. I’m arguing that that does not appear to be the case.
Howell,
First, I hope to explain on what FRBC giving the “go ahead” means soon. Let me put it like this. When someone tells you that you they are set in their decisions and that you are free to make the decisions you need to make for your organization and they will do so on their end I take that as a go ahead.
Thanks for clarifying on the DOM’s wife. I just didn’t quite get your point. It is unfair to think the church had other theological issues prior to calling a female pastor. Even it there were issues it is just speculation to say so without knowing. Obviously, when it comes to calling a female pastor it shows there were egalitarian views in play, but that doesn’t mean the whole of their theology is necessarily in question.
Justin,
I believe your church said, as you admitted, that there would not be a meeting. Further, the go ahead was given for Surrey to do what they needed to do, correct?
As far as I know, there was no agenda set to address the issue at the meeting. A messenger made a motion on the floor. I thought the DOM’s wife resigned months back. Given these two events why would you think the vote happened because of the DOM’s wife?
Brother Justin,
It doesn’t seem you are expressing the complete set of facts. Please, understand that no one wants to see you or your family hurt. However, to respond as a “victim” here is not exactly correct. The church received a certified letter for your wife because the association did not have an email address for her. Now for you to say your wife was not invited is, well, disingenuous.
Let’s face it, this vote may have come eventually. However, your wife as well as the leadership of the church has just as much responsibility in this vote coming when it did as the association.
Blessings,
Tim
Although I disagree with your scriptural position, I agree with you that the process could have been handled better based on your input here.
Justin,
God would never do anything that went against His Word, the Bible. The Bible tells us the heart and mind of God. Thus, God would not call a woman to be the Pastor of a church…since that would go against His Word. Soooo, a lady saying that God is calling her to be a Pastor is hearing something other than the call of God….she’s misunderstanding some feeling that she’s having. God does not go against His Word.
This is not putting God into a box. This is God being true to His Word. This is God telling us what He commands and wants for our lives.
David
David,
Amen!
I can’t believe the Scripture thrown out as a rhetorical point to try to circumvent God’s word.
Howell:
You said:”I conclude that from the fact that the DOM’s wife was employed by the church. If the church was so “out there” theologically, I find it hard to believe that the DOM’s wife would have remained there, even prior to the church calling your wife as its pastor.”
Outstanding question and it would be interesting if this fact would change anybodies mind as to what type of Baptist Church this was.
A church that would call a woman to be their Pastor is “out there.” That would tell me what I’d need to know, for sure. Either they’re theologically liberal, or else they’re very ignorant of the Bible.
David
David,
You may conclude that the church is “out there” now that they have called a woman as their pastor. My point was that, prior to Bailey Nelson being called by this church as pastor, there was apparently nothing that would have caused the DOM’s wife not to be employed by the church. Unless one concludes that the DOM and his wife are “out there” theologically, it defies logic and common sense to think that Flat Rock was somehow theologically suspect prior to the process which resulted in Pastor Nelson being ultimately called as pastor. This was obviously a deal breaker for the majority in the Association, but there doesn’t seem to be any other straws that were on the camel’s back prior to the calling of Bailey Nelson. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Maybe the DOM’s wife was seeing a lot of things about this church which made her feel uncomfortable for a long tiime. But, she was trying to overlook them…to do her job. But, this was the last straw. That could be the case?
David
David,
That could be the case, but it would have put her in a very difficult spot. I don’t believe you have made the argument (but others have) that to overlook and delay in doing something when you see sin is to commit sin yourself. In other words, to be patient and wait, seeing if things will work out, is unacceptable when clear sin is abounding.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that Flat Rock was anything other than a church in good standing in the Association prior to the kerfuffle with Nelson. Therefore, in light of the DOM’s wife working at Flat Rock, I find it hard to believe that there was any other straw on that camel prior to the final and only straw needed by some to break the camel’s back — that of calling a woman pastor. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
The real problem with the interpretation of the BFM of 2000 and the committee that produced it and the convention which adopted it is that they suffer from a one-sided analytical approch to scripture, from myopia, the problem with the scientific method of our age. An approach to scripture must take into account the fact that the Bible presents the truth concerning women in a two-sided construct, an idea with two apparently contradictory parts. Both sides are true, both held in the mind create an intended tension which enables the believer to be balanced, flexible, creative, enduring, andmagnetic in any given situation with reference to the particular truth involved.
I know I am writing for people, perhaps 50-100 years from now, when the intellectual framework for thinking will have enlarged, grown more complex in its perceptual qualities. It isn’t that it is so hard now; it is that we have prejudices that guide our thinking, and we are unable to recognize that they are such. We are so sure our one-sided, analytically focused investigations are correct that we automatically classify all evidence to the contrary as irrelevant. The only thing that will prevent us from total success is the evidence will show up which contradicts, which evidence our interpretation will not be able to handle.
Consider, for example, how a woman is supposedly ineligible for the diaconate, and then fasten your minds around the fact that in early church history we had deaconnesses. That, of course, hardly counts, but then, in scripture, you have Phoebe, a servant of the church of Cenchrea. In the original the term is DEACON OF THE CHURCH OF CENCHREA, that is, a masculine term applied to a female. That is evidence to the contrary, evidence that will not fit with a narrow, analytic interpretation. A proper interpretation must consider all of the evidence…not simply explain away evidence that does not fit in with pre-conceived understandings.
Calling women prophetesses, presenting Mary Magadalene as the first messenger of the resurrection (early church references call her the Apostle to the Apostles) along with the other women as witnesses of the resurrection, something that courts of law would not accept back then (a woman’s testimony was not accepted in Jewish court along with the tesimony of shepherds, to mention a few of excluded from legal processes), is tantamount to telling us that a new era for women is dawning, an era that does not comport with the paternalism of the old Judaic order. The same should be pointed out with reference to differences of class, structure, language, cultural background, etc.: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”(Gals.3:28).
I have known of churches that are supposedly complementary, but it was really a covering for a pathology of male dominance where the feminine part of the populace is controlled and manipulated. It is precisely this problem that covers pathologies that lies at the root of such evils as incest and pedophilia. The FMB of the SBC had a big law suit from one woman missionary, when the directors ignored her pleas for help with her missionary husband who was violating the boundaries of familial relationships. This was back in the 80s, if my memory serves correctly.
John Gill, interestingly enough, posits that woman has the right to speak in a church meeting (and that was set forth in the 1700s) and to give her testimony of conversion or her tesimony in a church trial. The women are called our sisters, and equality is the relationship between brothers and sisters. The church is an ekklesia, a called-out people assembled together. An ekklesia is membership of equality. If you were and are a member of an ekklesia, you were and are the equal of every other member in that ekklesia. This is congregationalism, and pressbyterial government will not work in a congregational church government.
The very rule of agape love between believers demands treatment of other believers as equals. There is no room for superiors and inferiors. Even the elders are not be Lords over the flock, but they are examples. Thus, their authority is that healthy, authoritative kind of power – not the authoritarian, you do as I say because I say it without question. Authoritative says, do as I do and say, if I have proven by example that I am worthy of such respect. This retains the respect of the believer, male or female, for the opposite sex along with those of the same sex. Thus, I respect and follow the precepts and admonitions of my pastor, because he conducts himself in a way that honors the Gospel. Failure to submit in a case where the example is faithfully lived is tantamount to defiance of God. But where the example is wanting and the precept that is enforced as a rule that cannot be questioned or that allows no exception is open to suspicion.
Egalitarianism, while abused by some who are pushing for anarchy, is really the way of the free, when implemented with a sense of responsibility. The republican, representative democracy which we have in America was designed for a moral people, for a people who take their responsibilities seriously and act accordingly. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty as Dr. George W. Truett pointed out, placed upon the head of the individual the crown of responsibility. In short, the doctrines of grace are the source of the responsible nature of the conduct of early Americans in the creation of this new nation. God’s sovereignty makes each man and each woman responsible for doing what God desires…not out of a sense of dreary duty but of glad, loving service. It is love to God, to His people, to one another, that demands that we treat one another with the bonds of affection which know no inferiors, only beloved loved ones.
Howell,
I’ve been trying to follow the comments and look at other places to get as much information on this case as possible, and I have a couple questions for you, for clarification.
1) What is your proposed remedy to this situation? Are you hoping the association reinstates the church? Admits a wrong? Maybe that the blog world will cast a vote of condemnation? What do you want to be done about this situation?
2) Was the association’s action an issue of right and wrong or an issue of preference? From what I’ve been able to gather, the association believes it offered, in good faith, a chance to meet. The response did not suggest a new date to meet and seemed resigned not to argue the issue. At the meeting one of the members made a motion, no one proposed they delay the vote, and the vote was cast. Was that wrong? I can’t say that it was. Could they have waited longer, proposed a new meeting date, invited the church’s leadership over for coffee and a discussion? Sure. They could have done things “better”, but that doesn’t indicate to me that they did something “wrong”.
Andrew,
What do I want done? Now, that is a good question. I’m not hoping that Flat Rock be reinstated because that is wishful thinking and not going to happen. What’s done is done. I’ve been about as clear as I can be in my original post and subsequent comments. Was it wrong to bring a motion to disfellowship a sister church from the Association without that motion coming from the Membership Committee? Was it wrong to take such an important vote in a summer (July) quarterly business meeting without giving advance notice to anyone, including Flat Rock, that there would be a motion to disfellowship made? Was it wrong to have a standing vote instead of by secret ballot? Was it wrong to continue to act like treating a long-standing member of your Association the way it was treated was perfectly acceptable? Was it wrong take 16 days to take this action? Was it wrong that the majority can do whatever it wants because this involved a female pastor?
I know how I would answer each of those questions, but I will never be able to convince you or anyone that what happened in the Surry Baptist Association was wrong. If you don’t see it by now, you most likely will never see it. That they could have done things “better” is an understatement. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Looking over your questions, it appears that unless the SBA did things they way you would have done them, they were sinning. You’re accusing them of not following your association’s bylaws, which they didn’t, and judging them guilty for it.
“If you don’t see it by now, you most likely will never see it.”
Sounds like the approach you’re criticizing the SBA for taking.
Andrew,
I have previously stated that Surry Baptist Association is autonomous. They can take whatever action they want to take in whatever way they want to take it. I would say that if they have By-Laws (which most Associations do), that they should follow the procedures set forth in those By-Laws for disfellowshipping a church. I readily admit that I have not read SBA’s By-Laws, but I cannot fathom a situation that would be fair, just, or right in which a church that was going to be disfellowshipped from an Association was not given advance notice of such an action.
Maybe there is no such procedure in SBA’s By-Laws. Nothwithstanding that fact, if you think that this procedure was fair, just, right, or the Christian way to handle this situation, then we will have to agree to disagree. If this had not been handled in what has been perceived as such an unjust manner, then the disfellowshipping of Flat Rock would have been but a blip on the radar. I probably wouldn’t have paid much attention to it and most likely would have never written about it. But, we should not ignore the actions of the Association or give them a pass simply because we might like the ultimate outcome. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell, I’ve posted a timeline of the events and the letter that was sent to FRBC requesting a meeting – Surry Baptist Association-Flat Rock Baptist Timeline.
In the timeline I have also quoted FRBC declining to meet.
Mark,
I didn’t see your comment here until after I read your post and commented at Here I Blog. I would encourage folks to read Mark’s post for further elaboration on the timeline of events leading up to FRBC’s being disfellowshipped from SBA. I’ll repost my response to Mark in case he (or anyone) else wants to continue the discussion here:
Mark,
I appreciate you fleshing out the timeline and including a copy of the letter originally sent to Flat Rock by the Jim Richland, in his capacity as Membership Committee Chaiman. It will probably not surprise you that, after reading the letter and your timeline, there are even more problematic questions that have arisen about this sad process. You and others continue to argue that Flat Rock’s refusal to attend the August 8 meeting (which would have been after the quarterly business meeting scheduled for Jul 25) somehow rises to the level of Flat Rocks “giving the go ahead” for SBA to vote to disfellowship the church. I simply find that reasoning hard to understand.
If one wants to use Richland’s letter as evidence, then it was a poorly written “demand letter.” I have written many a “demand letter” in my day, asking for certain actions to be taken. If those actions were not taken, then there would be specific consequences that would follow. If you could point out in the letter where there was even a hint of Flat Rock being disfellowshipped at the July meeting, I would appreciate it. It simply is not there. We can argue that Flat Rock “should have known” that they would face a motion to disfellowship them at a middle of the summer quarterly business meeting where no advance notice was given to them or to the churches of the Association, but that would be a stretch.
At the SBA meeting in question, there was no motion from the Membership Committee because half the Committee had not only not had time to learn of Flat Rock’s response, but obviously did not have time to pray or deliberate about a proper course of action in this case. Instead of waiting, the MC Chairman, acting not in his capacity as Chairman, but just as an “association messenger,” made a motion to disfellowship, even though the “concerned pastors” were asked to work through the Membership Committee. If, as the one pastor stated, “a majority of the MC agreed to remove FRBC,” then why was this not done as a recommendation of the Committee?
Maybe Flat Rock should have been summarily dismissed from SBA. Even if one holds to that belief, I continue to be amazed at the spirited defense of what, by all appearances, was a deeply flawed and graceless process, IMO. 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
First, you misread me on the go ahead statement. Second, why do you blame that committee or association officials as if the messengers present did not participate? Or were the messengers dumb sheep just following along?
The motion nor vote happened in a vacuum. Over 2/3’s of those present did not have to vote in favor of the motion. If the motion should have been ruled out of order then it should have been, but it wasn’t.
FRBC replied they were happy with their new female pastor and were not going to change when declining to meet. Do you think the FRBC folks were not wise enough to foresee a potential problem? The DOM’s wife quit, SBA contacted the church out of concern, etc. yet FRBC stood firm in what they did while telling SBA basically do what they need to do.
Howell,
I’m not trying to justify them. I am just somewhat surprised that you, being a lawyer, would pass judgment on the association without knowing what their bylaws are, especially when I see nothing that supports malicious intent. You’re just giving a blanket judgment based on your association’s bylaws, which you perceive to be morally superior to the procedure followed by the SBA. It could be that you’re right. But absent knowledge of those bylaws or evidence of malicious intent, I will have to disagree with you.
Andrew,
I am not ascribing “malicious intent” to what the Association did. I am also not claiming that my Association’s By-Laws are “morally superior.” I’m simply using them as one example of process and procedure for disfellowshipping a sister church. Even if there were no By-Laws which were controlling (which I find hard to believe), this was a case of first impression in this Association, which means they had never been confronted with disfellowshipping a sister church for calling a female pastor.
The original reporting on this situation — none of which has been disputed by the parties involved — quotes the DOM as saying “his association wanted to withdraw fellowship from Flat Rock as “peaceably” as possible amid rumors that an angry motion would be made at the associational meeting.” Why anger? I thought that people should proceed out of love and grace? Surely there are no angry, quarrelsome pastors in the Association who would be disqualified under 1 Timothy 3?
If taking a mere 16 days, even assuming there was a complete lack of procedures in the By-Laws for dealing with this type of situation, is seen as somehow grace-filled, then I would simply have to disagree. I would be curious to know how many churches, if any, have ever been disfellowshipped from Surry Baptist Association. If there were others, what procedures were followed? If Flat Rock was the first, then the procedures followed fall far short of what I would consider fair, just, and grace-filled. If pointing that out is now considered “judgmental,” then I will glaly plead guilty. 🙂 Thanks and God bless,
Howell
“Then I will gladly plead guilty.” 🙂
I will glaly make fun of you for the spelling error.
This isn’t my blog, so I am in no position to invite anyone to do anything, but I would be very interested in one of our egalitarians providing what they believe to be the exegetical argument in favor of women pastors. Many here believe (I am not one of them) that egalitarianism is simply open rebellion against God and the bible. I’m sure egals don’t think that, so I’d like to see the argument.
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps Paul’s injunctions against women were temporal or contextual and yet within the framework of inspiration (as is the slavery issue). I’m not an egal but I think I can see where the argument will come from.
Any takers?
I’m not egal, but it seems that they take the masculine qualifications in the pastoral epistles as culturally conditioned. We’re in a different culture; therefore, these masculine requirements are no longer needed in our culture. I see their argument; but, I disagree.
Jared: I disagree also, but I just want people to see that egals do have an argument, even if it isn’t convincing, just like paedobaptists. We do, after all, ascribe some cultural conditions onto some scriptures. I think to say “there’s only one possible interpretation” is incorrect.
Lest someone jump on my last statement (like that would ever happen ;)) , I’m not suggesting multiple interpretations are correct, simply that they might be reasonable.
You’ve seen the argument. You’ve seen the scripture. It’s been done as many times as the other hot topic arguments. I’m not egal, I’m pretty much in between although I tend to be more egal probably.
Here’s another church which has a woman pastor, pastorette, that was disfellowshipped….
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6631/53/
Howell:
As an attorney, I can sense your frustration–as more facts come out that should put Flat Rock in a different light these guys just dig in and are intractable. Nothing is going to change there position.
I really do not think they even view Bailey Nelson as a person deserving of grace. She is just some “lady”.
In their minds Flat Rock and Ms. Nelson are getting what they deserve so let’s just move on.
For me it is very refreshing to see folks like William Thornton and Howell Scott take the brave position of refuting these others.
Sadly, William and Howell will pay a high price in the SB world for doing this.
You insist on painting those of us with a different view than your own as unreasonable, intractable and demeaning to others. Please either engage in discussion of the issues or leave the debate.
You have every right to tell us why you think that SBA was wrong or how the process was handled wrongly. Go for it. But if your only purpose is to insult those of us with a different perspective, you have made your point.
My intent is not to insult.
Well, there are a lot of really good discussions going on that you could get involved in then. Go for it.
To those several of you who simply want to engage in insults to one another, I suggest that you start your own group blog and insult one another all day long. I’m tired of it here.
If your purpose is to insult another blogger, even if you think that is well-deserved, know that it is not welcome here.
You are free to disagree, even forcefully – that is honorable and permitted. But you are not free to insult the character or person of another blogger. If someone insults you, please tell me at davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com and I will remove the insult.
If you wish to discuss this, my email is above.
Consider this selection from among the 200 or so comments on the three pieces on the surry/flat rock issue:
“Churches that want chick preachers…” Joe Blackmon
“We think women are wonderful creatures” Davidvolfan
“It’s not fair! I want to give birth to a baby!” Jared Moore
“Ms. Nelson” (a deliberate choice by Sandra to avoid calling her “Pastor” or “Rev”; find the last time someone used “Mr.” referencing one of us)
“Here’s another church which has a woman pastor, pastorette” Davidvolfan
I confess to not being exhaustive in my research here.
One wonders, isn’t Bailey Nelson have the Christian respect and kindness that we would likely extend to most anyone, regardless of our differing opinions? Is there some necessity for ridicule and condescension to make a stronger argument for the complimentarian position?
William, my comment was directed at the fact that we have totally different natural roles given by God, at least at the procreation level. I’m fine with fulfilling my role. I imagine that women are fine with fulfilling their role as well. Why then do they feel diminished if the pastorate is reserved for men according to Scripture?
BTW: Why include my comment as unkind? Could it be that you take my comments in the worst possible way every time?
Well, no, Jared. I only take what you write and let it go where it will.
Your attempt to bolster your argument by a first person analogy (“It’s not fair! I want to give birth to a baby!”) infantilizes women who want to be or are pastors. Surely you can see that.
women who want to be pastors are wrong. They shouldnt want to be Pastors, or pastorettes. So, what’s wrong with telling it like it is? If someone came up to me, and said that God told them to be one of the 12 Apostles…I’ll tell them the same thing…you’re wrong. Sorry, but the 12 are dead, and there wont be anymore. No matter what they say that God TOLD them.
You know, to take it to the extreme….I was watching TV one night, when the news people were interviewing a stripper. She said that there was nothing wrong with what she was doing. She said that she was a Christian, and she was stripping for Jesus. She felt like that was her calling in life. lol ….well, you know what? I’d tell her that she was wrong, too. It wasnt God’s voice that she was hearing.
David, I have confidence that you don’t really mean to put female pastors in the same category as strippers, and that you really do see a problem with “pastorettes” as a descriptive term, and that your conversations with fellow Christians in person would show more kindness and respect.
William, it should only offend a woman that bases her calling, not on Scripture, but on the argument that she is devalued if God doesn’t allow her to do what men do. God did not create me to birth babies; yet, I don’t feel devalued.
If a woman has an exegetical reason, I will gladly hear her out. I can understand the reasoning behind this. I even wrote an article on Voices arguing that women can teach men in the local church, except from the office of pastor. So, I’m a loose complimentarian.
BTW: I still don’t understand your point. You’re nitpicking my articles and comments as of late. What’s your deal?
Jared, I am, futilely, making a lame attempt to show you something you are not seeing. Your first sentence above to me is further illustration that you really don’t grasp the concept.
William, you are correct, I don’t get your point at all.
Then, Jared, we can just be two happy ships passing in the night. Nothing left to say, bro.
I’ve always said that if God calls a woman to the position of pastor (and who am I to limit what God might do), then she had better go find a church/denomination that will embrace her calling. And that isn’t the SBC for sure. What amazes me is the animosity I read from men who should know better.
God doesn’t call women to pastor (and this not limiting what God would do) because He forbids it in His inerrant word.
I’ve always said that if God calls a woman to the position of pastor (and who am I to limit what God might do), then she had better go find a church/denomination that will embrace her calling. And that isn’t the SBC for sure. What amazes me is the animosity I read from men who should know better.
The issues related to gender roles are going to continue into the future. The history of the U.S. on theological matters, and the SBC especially, colors this debate.
The SBC has come down on the side that has been with the church for 2000 years and is the position of the vast majority of Christians across the globe. Other groups disagree and want to forge a new direction.
The difficulty comes when the desires of a minority position interact with exisiting denominational position.
Dave, I note the sometimes harsh words in this debate. People who believe that God has ordained male leadership for the Church usually believe that those who disagree are being unfaithful to the Bible and Church History. People who believe that God has not ordained male leadership for the Church say that Church history is corrupt but that the Bible does not establish male leadership for the Church. They also throw in the usual epithets about being backward, close minded, and there is often some derision and shaming that it attempted.
I believe that it is probably the best course for the SBC to be very direct about this or we will have a political football and more discord that won’t go away. It would be better, in my opinion for the folks who believe in female leadership for the Church to start some churches with female pastors in a separate fellowship or denomination, like the CBF (assuming the CBF eventually declares that it is separate – really a formality, but I have no influence there).
I believe it would not be unhealthy for there to be Evangelical churches in the U.S., some who believe in male leadership and some who do not. But I believe these groups would function best if they were separate and emphasized their own mission, rather than spending lots of time trying to change people’s opinions through denominational political activity, harsh words and such.
I don’t know how to make that happen, obviously. After all, the U.S. is the land of “Revolution”, so it’s in our DNA to adopt causes, try to “change the system”. It just seems on this issue the proponents of change have places to go and groups to join where they would not have to try and convince anyone to allow their position. I would prefer that they follow their vision and go in that direction. They probably won’t – for a host of reasons that I will not try to list.
If those churches don’t leave, the SBC, State Conventions and Associations will be faced with decisions.
There are 2 directions – emphasize the doctrinal confession and continue to apply it where possible (all appointments to committees, all faculty hires, literaturary authors, speakers at denominational events, missionary appointments) and positively promote the blessing of male leadership, or become quiet and accommodate, which will eventually lead to more politics and in practical terms the loss of the traditional position.
There is a third option – kick the churches out. I don’t think that the SBC, the states or the associations should kick churches out for this matter only. But when a church takes this action, the church, its leaders, the new pastor should be encouraged to follow the confession of the denomination, and they should understand why it would be unproductive for them to take this cause of action. This should be done in a friendly manner, but directly, and often. Usually nothing is said and the matter just exists. That is not helpful, either.
People who believe that male leaderhsip in the church is God ordained are going to have to cast this vision for a new generation, and do so often, so that the new generation does not drift right out from under them. They cannot take it for granted that this position will remain static. Any belief worth having is worth defending. And any belief worth defending is worth promoting. This should be a matter of intentional discipleship, in my opinion.
Finally, traditionalists should also be very careful to not add things to this debate. I think that the BFM does a good job in this regard. It avoids minutia.
Too often, in my opinion, the belief that the Scriptures prescribe is male leadership for the Church is stretched way beyond where it should go. I think that hurts the traditionalist position. We have had to deal with that in our own church. So, I hope the SBC and the traditionalists will not extend what the BFM says in such a way as to become hypertechnical and legalistic.