I referenced William’s side of this. Here it is. You can read both. Maybe Howell will post here as well. It’s a necessary discussion.
Flat Rock Baptist Church in Mount Airy North Carolina was quickly and summarily expelled from the Surry Baptist Association the other day according to [http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6626/53/] this APB story from last week. Seems the church had done the unusual, the unthinkable, the unpardonable – they called a female pastor.
Tony Cartlege calls it ‘courageous, the association calls their kicking out action an attempt to facilitate “restoration to doctrinal purity and a renewed sense of unity.” You bet.
“Unity through purity”,the associational mission statement?
Sounds rather foreboding.
The association’s response may be read here. It is a rather sterile treatment of the matter which concludes that they did the right thing but that folks should be nice to the new pastor and pray for her. Her what? Success? Souls saved? Her church to grow? Oh, pray for her to repent and disappear from Surry Associaion.
Fellow SBC blogger Howell Scott has a good piece on the matter here. Scott takes the association to task for being hasty in this action. The fellow churches took all of two weeks to kick the church out, not much of a honeymoon. Guess time was of the essence for the brethren. I mean, she might have preached a pretty good sermon, led someone to Christ, or (gasp!) even baptized a new believer. You bet, get that church out of the association before anything like that can happen. They did.
I’ve been in a number of associations and understand that this is a pastor-driven business and sometimes the pastors smell blood and get in a feeding frenzy and act with haste. This is such a case. Dare I call it a lynch mob mentality? Naw, not the men of the cloth in that association – fine, upstanding, erudite, scholarly gentlemen.
Well, I read that the vote to expel the wayward church and pastor was 80%. Perhaps some of the 20% will speak up.
I understand that associations are autonomous and may expel churches with female pastors or left handed pastors, whatever they decide among themselves. No one tells a Baptist association what to do, sometimes not even Jesus…but I wish Jesus had been consulted at greater length on this matter. It looks bad for everyone.
No, a woman pastor is not my thing. But no, I wouldn’t have voted to kick the church out. Yes, I would have treated the new pastor just like I have treated female pastors (all Methodists) who have been my neighbors over the years at various times. I’d be kind, helpful, encouraging.
This type of situation will only be more frequent in the future. We had better find a better plan for handling it.
We are on the same side, aren’t we?
Yes, always. It’s just that we aren’t all in the same place at the same time on the journey quite yet . . . but we will be
“I have to remind myself that some birds aren’t meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright. And when they fly away, the part of you that knows it was a sin to lock them up DOES rejoice. ”
(from the ‘Shawshank Redemption’)
I would add that I edited my piece (I confess to being a sloppy writer) to include the pastor’s name: Bailey Edwards Nelson.
For the record, my state convention, GBC, has taken the same action but before they brought it to a vote, they expended a lot of effort to make contact with the church and pastor. Dr. White our exec made a considerable effort in this.
So was the problem that they didn’t try hard enough to work with the church? If they had tried to get the church to change directions and bring in a male pastor, only to have the church refuse, and only after that to remove the church, would that be acceptable? Do you agree it is appropriate for an association to remove a church exercising this kind of disobedience, provided they first try to bring the church back to faithfulness? Or is it always wrong to remove a church over the issue of women pastors, so even your state convention was in the wrong?
Chris:
You said:”Do you agree it is appropriate for an association to remove a church exercising this kind of disobedience, provided they first try to bring the church back to faithfulness?”
What other kinds of disobedience should associations be concerned about to expel churches. Can you see this is a slippery slope? If associations are looking for unity I’m not sure expelling churches is the way to achieve it.
But let’s not miss the point. This church has been removed from the association. It is done. It is finito, we are are just doing a post mortem about it.
That there is a danger of going too far in some circumstances does not mean ignoring problems in every circumstance. As I’ve stated before, the issue of women in ministry is one that demonstrates a remarkable willingness to distort or ignore the Bible’s teachings. This problem is worth separation. For myself, if I were part of an association that did not remove churches with women pastors, I would have to withdraw from that association.
What other kinds of disobedience should associations be concerned about to expel churches.
Churches that have homosexual couples where they don’t bring church discipline against them with the goal of leading them to repentance. Churches that allow pastors to keep staff members who molest children because they “wanted to show grace” to the offender. Just a couple of examples off the top of my head.
Well, there you have it: female pastors are right there with homosexuals and pedophiles.
Anyone see anything amiss here?
Sorry your reading comprehension isn’t adequate enough to handle that comment. He said “other kinds”. I said nothing about them being equivilent. Sorry I didn’t hold your hand and lead you from point A to point B. I’ll try to remember you need that next time.
I thought I was pretty clear, Chris: I wouldn’t vote to expel.
Just clarifying. Your comment about your state convention seemed to imply that the actions of the state convention were acceptable.
I think where I would vote would depend on this: had the church committed, as part of joining the association, to follow all the points of the BFM2K or another statement that explicitly stated that a church should not have a lady senior pastor.
If they had agreed to that prior, I would vote to expel.
If they had not, and that was not at all part of the membership expectations of the association prior to, I would not. I would move, perhaps, that the by-laws be studied and the association decide if that was ok, then take a year to consult with the Word of God and determine if the association, in majority, wanted that rule. Then we’d go from there.
Churches that call [female] preachers are not Southern Baptist Churches. They maybe Christian churches. They may be Baptist churches. They should not be allowed to associate at any level (local, state, national) with Southern Baptist churches. I am so thankful for this association taking a stand for the Bible and showing this church the door. They will be MORE than welcome in the CBF. Of course, is there any group that wouldn’t be welcome in the Cooperate-with-anyone Baptist Fellowship?
You don’t need to thank me for the help, Joe.
Ha!!!!
Put me down as one, who would have voted to disfellowship with them. I believe we should try to hold as closely to what the Bible teaches as possible.
David
Associations need churches more than churches need associations. The church no doubt saw this coming before they extended the call, which is why they refused to meet. After all, what would a meeting accomplish? Would the church fire the pastor? Would the association change its mind? No to both. That church has not been hurt by this. I wish them well.
I don’t think churches should call female pastors, but it never ceases to surprise me what massive importance people seem to give the issue, as if the church has suddenly gone apostate.
I think that is one of the key differences between conservative viewpoints on this issue – the level of importance we give it. David Worley (I think this is fair to say, Vol) gives this a pretty high level of importance. William gives it much less importance. I’m probably in between them.
Something Howell and William may not have realized is this:
that in the simple act of wanting ‘grace’ to be shown,
it already has been
Well, I give it such importance due to the teachings of Scripture…you know,”the husband of one wife” thing for one. The “women should not teach a man…should not usurp authority over the man” thing for another. And, there are many, many other passages which would clearly teach us that men should be Pastors(Elders)….that its not a role that God ordained women to do.
That’s why its such an important issue to me and to others.
David
David,
You know you’re just a male chauvinist pig. It’s just sexist to believe that a woman can’t be a preacher. Why, how else are they going to preach the gospel. It’s the 21st century, man. Things have changed since the 1950’s.
(/sarcasm) LOL
Joe,
🙂
David
David: But the fact is, you, and the rest of us, all think every doctrine we believe is taught in scripture. But we don’t hold them all to the same level of importance, or else we would have a different denomination for each believer. So Southern Baptists who agree on baptism but disagree about eschatology have agreed that eschatology is less important than baptism, even though the dispensationalist and amillenialist both believe their view is taught in scripture. (dispys are wrong of course, but that’s a separate post)
Some people, you included, are no doubt adamant that women should not be deacons, because of the same verses you cite for elders. But the framers of the BFM2K decided that the deaconess issue was not important enough to disrupt cooperation amongst Southern Baptists.
William,
Is it not possible to maintain doctrincal fidelity and love the person in error at the same time? Do you think that the association is attempting to do this?
Excog
I don’t know my own state of mind at times, so I couldn’t say with certainty what the folks in that association were thinking. I can only say that there isn’t much in this that looks like they are attempting to love the person.
The best I could say is that the associational leaders were tone deaf and inept in their handling of the matter.
One thing your blog omited was that the association requested a meeting with the church and this request was refused.
We might put that to rest as something that is in the association’s favor. They wrote a letter to the church the week following the pastor’s first Sunday at the church referring to how the church’s action threatened the fellowship of the association. The association as the victim? Exactly what would the meeting be about? Love and kisses?
I don’t blame the church for refusing the meeting.
If the DOM called on the church or the new pastor for a private discussion, he hasn’t mentioned it.
Looks hamhanded all the way around to me.
Sorry Dave, we’re not all on the same page here on this one. My page happens to come from scripture which soup to nuts, Genesis to Revelation, forbids women pastors in policy (1 Tim. 2), practice and pattern and is fairly significant. Why any SBC leader or member that adheres to the plenary and verbal, all-sufficient and authoritative word of God would be so cavalier about tolerating such an afront to biblical church practice is a mystery to me.
As one SBC blogger notes, there are Brick Wall and Picket fence (thus separating close ministry and fellowship) doctrines which must be built and followed. This is one hard, stony picket fence if there ever was one.
The Brick Wall/Picket Fence thing makes a lot of sense. I’d like to read that. I’m not sure what page you think I’m on. I agree that the Bible is about as clear on gender issues as it can be. I am sympathetic with the association’s intent if not with all of their process.
What is it I said that you disagree with so strenuously?
Also, this issue shows once again why I say any “conservative” that got hurt in the Conservative Resurrgence can’t claim that they were an innocent bystander.
All it takes for the moderates, with which the convention was reeking pre-1979, to maintain a presence is for there to be conservatives who would be willing to work with them. “Sure, we might disagree about this or that, but they love Jesus and, gosh darn it, that’s good enough for me.”
As far as this church goes, since they hired a chi….err, female preacher, they should have done the polite thing and dropped out of the association without being asked. They could have saved the association them time they spent having to discuss a situation that is clearly spelled out in scripture.
William,
To respond to the title of your post: And that is why you are a liberal.
Les
William has expressed his conservative stance over an over. On the basis of this you want to label him a liberal?
I’m throwing the flag. Fifteen yards for unnecessary roughness.
See, I’m thinking the term “liberal” doesn’t apply. He’s more of a “liberal enabler”–the kind of conservative that would never have been so divisive and mean spirited to do to the moderates what was donei in the CR. So, he’s on their side even if he’s not one of them.
So far, we’ve had liberals and Nazis. Might be time for the whole blog to take a week off and think about ourselves.
I guess I fall under “liberal” on this too, based on the overall structure of how this seems to have happened. I do agree with Joe Blackmon and you on this: the SBC, and probably Surry Association, though I haven’t read their stuff, are staunchly complementarian. This is evident. As a graduate of McAfee, Pastor Nelson would have known it, too. The church knew it. They chose to call her—they might as well have gone ahead and voted to drop out of the SBC, and the Association at the same time.
On the whole, though, shouldn’t those who think themselves as right and mature behave with more than expected grace and patience? Isn’t that part of knowing you’re right, not being overly threatened by people you know are wrong?
Oh good grief.
Les is a William-hater because William has challenged some of Les’ ridiculous statements from time to time over at BL.com
Les’ most recent post is as extreme as his William=liberal statement here.
I figured there must be some back-story here.
If Joe had studied I Cors.13 in the Greek for two years and gotten some insights from such a study, he might be a little slower on the draw and shoot to kill attitude that he has. Being Southern Baptists has females in ministry stuck in the very roots in a day, when they did not argue over the fact of believing the Bible or over inspiration. it behooves all of us not to be overbearing on this issue. Those eldresses in the Sandy Creek Church is a warning against being know-it-alls on this issue. The idea of not voting to expel is a wise piece of advice.
Ah, yes, complimentarians are so mean and unloving. Boo hoo. So now, not only are we Nazis but we’re big ol’ meanies, too. What’s next, Jim? Are you going to talk about our mothers? “Yo’ mama bref so stank….”
And thank you for reminding me that just because something was done in the past that means it was ok.
Joe, my remarks are not as acid as you take them. what I am doing is calling attention to what happens due to no checks and balances…such was the case in Germany. America had complementarianism and egalitarianism, and it had checks and balances. Southern Baptists have been doing battle for the Bible, and that has given us a tendency to push to the side of authoritarianism. What we need is to exercise checks and balances, seeking the authoritative, the healthy sense of authority, the kind that will not take advantage of a brother or a sister, that will not manipulate or play games of oneupsmanship.
To some degree we cannot help but show our fallen natures in playing such games, but the truth must assert itself in our lives and conduct. Just consider being a father, for instance. I have a son who is a minister whom I love dearly. True, he gave me some near heart attacks in his teenage years. Even so in the period just about the time he was to enter them, he said to me one day, “I love you so much, it hurts.”
From his remark, I learned a lot. Loving people so much that it hurts means that you will not hold back to do your best by them and for them. Think of all the examples of devout brothers and sisters in the churches. Think of how they have inspired us, helped us. Think of encouraging them, winning them to greater commitment or comforting them with appreciation for the encouragement they gave us in the Christian way.
The fact that the association requested a meeting with the church and the church refused puts the blame on the church not the association. It sounds like to me that the church needs to exercise a little more grace or else go be Methodist.
John:
I continue to be amazed by yours and others being so cut and dry about facts that require an interpretation.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say about this church going and being Methodist. Do you mean that as an insult?
I think this church showed plenty of grace.
John, excellent points. This church and the lady were invited to a meeting. They refused. However, the facts of this case are completely cut and dried. There is no question–women cannot serve as pastors. The lady may be called “pastor” by that church, but the lady is not a pastor.
I’m sure theologically they would fit right in with the Methodists.
Thanks Joe,
I just don’t get why people can’t see that the church forced the hand of the association by calling a woman. Our local association did the same thing five or so years ago when a church started ordaining women deacons and actually administering sprinkling for baptism.
Tom,
How did it show grace? It refused a meeting with the association, that puts the onus on them. As far as the Methodist comment I’m simply saying the vast majority of Southern Baptists don’t want women pastors, and so this church ought to go join some denomination that embraces women pastors.
Im not trying to insult anyone, just simply stating my opinion.
The could go join the CBF–it doesn’t matter what you believe there. There is nothing doctrinal that they would ever stand against–well, unless it was conservative, Bible believing doctrine.
John:
You said:”How did it show grace? It refused a meeting with the association, that puts the onus on them.”
You’re trying to make this cut and dry and it is not.
What other than a woman would you use to disfellowship a church?
Not all SB feel the way you do about women in the ministry.
How did it show grace? It refused a meeting with the association, that puts the onus on them.
Excellent point, John. It is so clearly cut and dried I’d pity the person who couldn’t recognize it. I’d worry they didn’t have enough sense to get out of the rain.
The church and the lady didn’t want to meet with the association. More to the point, the lady believes that, in spite of what God’s inerrant word clearly teaches, that she is called to preach. Furthermore, just because that church believes the lady is qualified to preach does not make it so.