When Trayvon Martin was shot and killed because he simply looked “suspicious,” initiated by the fact that Zimmerman viewed him as “suspicious” and chose to pursue him against the order of the police department, it was a personal, powerful, picturesque and emotional moment for me to hear Dr. Fred Luter address this matter as President of the SBC. I never thought I would live long enough to hear a SBC President redemptively, righteously and prophetically address a matter when a young Black man was needlessly shot because the idea was stimulated by unfounded suspicion and his killer not following a police order.
If a Hispanic person was addressing immigration issues while serving as President of the SBC, it would likely have a radically different tone and project the SBC as compassionate on the immigration question.
Imagine for a moment with me, what if the person serving as SBC President at this hour was a competent, accomplished, biblically sound, orthodox female who could address the multitude of questions and issues the SBC is facing regarding women issues? The criticism and skepticism would be less dramatic if the SBC historically had demonstrated confidence and belief in the gifts and value of SBC women serving at all levels of leadership in SBC institutional life within the boundaries of the Bible.
To say this is a critical hour in the life of the SBC is an understatement. The presidency of the SBC is by design weighted more toward symbolism than governing. There is no budget, personnel, office space, and extremely limited authority that are presumptive or inherent in occupying the office of President of the SBC. Yes, the SBC President appoints the committee on committees that appoints all of the SBC committees. Yes, the SBC President presides over the Annual SBC gathering. Yes, the SBC President serves as an ex-officio trustee of all SBC entities. Yes, the SBC President serves on the committee on order of business. Yes, the SBC President serves as an official representative of the SBC to the public at large and as a representative to other parachurch or denominational gatherings. Beyond those aforementioned responsibilities, the SBC presidency has no decision-making authority. Again, the SBC presidency is largely symbolic, not authoritative. Therefore, a woman would not be usurping authority over a man by serving as SBC President.
The SBC is an entity head and trustee-driven governmental system. The SBC President is not an entity head or voting trustee of any of the entities. The President of the Executive Committee of the SBC, which is a job currently vacant and most recently held by Frank Page, has oversight of a colossal budget and staff and is appointed by the EC Trustee Board. That position, totally distinct from The Office of the President of the SBC, inherently has much more authority than the elective office of the President of the SBC. Clearly, the SBC President has a large “bully pulpit,” if they choose to use it; and a great deal of influence, but very limited constitutional authority. In NBC life the role of the EC and President of the NBC are synonymous. In the SBC, this is not so. My reason for explaining the above is because I have observed that there is widespread ignorance in SBC life regarding the role and authority of the President of the SBC, succinctly stated; The President of the SBC is not a position of inherent authority, but usually widespread name recognition and influence, based on ministry history and convention support.
I’ve never met or communicated with J.C. Greear in any context, to the best of my recollection. His ministry reputation is impeccable. His record on race is impressive. Greear’s noble act, in standing down, so that unity and the election of Steve Gaines would stand up, was so impressive to me that made up my mind then that I was going to vote for him in ’20, regardless to who his opposition might be. I tweeted my support for Greear before Dr. Ken Hemphill announced his candidacy for the presidency. I remain true to my commitment to vote for Greear.
However, Ken Hemphill is a man that I know personally. Hemphill is a man that I deeply love and respect. If he had announced first, I would have been not only supportive of his candidacy, I would have voted for him, based on my personal history with him. As many have noted, we will be in good hands as a convention with either Greear or Hemphill.
My appreciation for Hemphill lies in the fact that he was an incredible President at SWBTS. He was and is deeply loved, respected and appreciated by Black seminarians, because he was kind and fair toward us. SWBTS National Black Alumni held a once in a lifetime reunion during Hemphill’s tenure at SWBTS and honored him. A portion of that two-day reunion was held at Cornerstone Church, Arlington, where I serve as pastor. Hemphill’s record concerning women is also impeccable. Black female seminarians loved Hemphill. They were allowed to take preaching classes with males, without any professor speaking despairingly toward them. Dr. Hemphill was pressured to resign at SWBTS, because of his favorable disposition toward women in ministry. Dr. Karen Bullock taught church history during Dr. Hemphill’s tenure and preached in chapel at SWBTS. Allowing her to preach infuriated certain SWBTS trustees; and that led to his untimely departure. Sheri Klouda was hired by Dr. Hemphill to teach Hebrew, approved by the trustees. She was later fired by the same inerrantist, conservative trustees for being a woman teaching men. Her gender had to be observable when they hired her. Later, her hiring was labeled “a momentary lapse in parameters.”
Dr. Hemphill was exemplary and biblical in how he affirmed, valued and elevated women in SBC life within biblical parameters. Hemphill is a continuationist and has documented that in his book on spiritual gifts. When many were criticizing a chapel sermon, that affirmed continuationist that I preached in 2006, Hemphill released a statement to the Baptist Pressaffirming continuationism. He could have chosen silence. There was nothing for him to gain by affirming continuationism in the context of my chapel sermon, but he did. Much respect for Ken Hemphill. Honestly, I feel disloyal to our history, by not voting for him. Furthermore, during his tenure and Dilday’s tenure, I probably preached chapel ten times at SWBTS. Chapel preaching invitations from SWBTS ceased after my 2006 sermon affirming continuationism. I have continued to support SWBTS with generous annual contributions and funding SWBTS with tuition assistance for students who attend Cornerstone, Arlington.
Many Black female seminarians confided in me that there was an atmospheric change on campus and mainly in classrooms, after the departure of Dr. Hemphill, which in part may also explain the drop in enrollment after he left.
The two greatest institutional systemic sins that the SBC has practiced throughout her history are racism and sexism. Those twofold demons seem to inevitably and periodically raise their ugly heads in SBC life. The SBC system produced and covered the racism and sexism. This cannot be laid at the feet of any one person. None of what’s being questioned and voted as unacceptable today, would not have even been questioned in the ‘70’s, ‘80’s, ‘90’s and even 2000. The initial info that caused the recent uproar was widely publicly known in 2000, and it was met with a yawn. What have changed are the SBC people, who are no longer willing to tolerate certain behaviors as they once did. The SBC sin of sexism was passed down generationally and is only now being seriously challenged. To deny a woman from serving as a SBC president or vice president is purely sexist from my vantage point. But if this is the SBC’s position, it needs to be stipulated in the bylaws/constitution. It is fundamentally dishonest and a colossal integrity issue, to know for certain that the SBC would not elect a woman president or allow a woman to serve as a vice president of an entity, but yet not put this practice/belief in writing. We owe it to women to be honest with them regarding their mobility and potential in SBC institutional life.
If I thought Beth Moore would accept the nomination or be agreeable to being nominated, because of her qualifications and the current context the SBC finds herself in…I would nominate her for SBC President.
The SBC is a parachurch organization—not a church. Therefore, there is absolutely not one Bible verse, or SBC constitutional bylaws prohibitions, nor any BF&M 2000 prohibitions against a woman serving as SBC President. Tradition, sexism, fear and other non-biblical factors would probably prevent any woman, including Deborah, Mary the Mother of Jesus, Lydia, Junia or Priscilla, or Lottie Moon from being elected President of the SBC; but, I repeat…there is not one Bible verse or SBC constitutional prohibition.
Therefore, I could vote for a qualified woman with a clear conscience for President of the SBC. The I Timothy 2:12 passage is reference to local church leadership, not parachurch leadership. The statement on gender roles in the BF&M 2000 does not prohibit female leadership in the SBC Convention or entity life. To impose I Timothy 2:12 as a prohibition on a female SBC President would be tantamount to imposing Genesis 9:25-27, as a prohibition for a Black, Asian, or Hispanic SBC President. Neither Scripture is addressing prohibitions in parachurch offices. Historically, though, they have been used or misused to draw such erroneous conclusions.
I Timothy 2:12 is the verse that erroneously cost Karen Bullock and Sheri Klouda, their jobs at SWBTS. In 2010, I submitted a resolution that was denied that appealed to the SBC to repent for their attitude, actions and disposition toward women. Women have been denied VP roles in SBC entities because of I Timothy 2:12; that’s sinful and shameful, God’s judgment has come upon us, “shall we continue in sin?” Had the SBC repented of her proclivity toward sexism in 2010, we may not be facing our current crisis.
To elect Beth Moore would do more to heal our Convention, seal women within our convention who have lost hope and right historic patterns of wrong toward women, without compromising qualifications, integrity, competency, or Scripture. The questions are, “Are we there yet?” or do we have to wait 100 more years and experience more of God’s judgment? SEBTS recently elected a woman as chairman of their Trustee Board. Progress is being made. Serving as an ex-officio officer of SBC entity trustee boards is one of the duties of an SBC president. By already permitting women trustees and a woman chairperson, the precedence is already set.
I believe The Sovereign God of the Universe is responsible for the current happenings in the SBC. God wants the SBC to set her house in order—racially and gender wise. He is cleaning the SBC house, so that He can bless the SBC house with a mighty manifestation of His presence to equip, empower, and enlighten His people to be His salt and light on earth. We are experiencing a purging, that is a necessary prerequisite for the empowerment of His people.
The purpose of this article is simply to stimulate our thinking, so that we will begin to ponder how to empower and value the gifts of SBC women within the boundaries of Scripture, rather than majoring in how we can restrict them. Could it be that what was intended toward women as evil in the SBC, God will now turn it around and use it for good (Genesis 50:20)? There are too many cases of women prophesying to men, in Scripture, publicly to hide behind I Timothy 2:12 as an excuse to not elect a woman as president or vice president of our Convention.
Thanks Dwight, I’m planning to vote for J.D. and think he is the right choice for the SBC this year. I also agree that there’s no biblical warrant for excluding a woman from serving as convention president.
Did my comment about Beth Moore get rejected by you Mr. Hobbs – or was it something else?
[Mod: Tim, none of your comments have been rejected, deleted, trashed, or otherwise. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. But let’s try and sing more than one note, ok?]
Note to commenters: during the site transition, we lost two days of comments, unfortunately. Comments from that time were not deleted but we don’t have a way of recovering. We apologize for that.
Side note on this post: we are not going to debate the Trayvon Martin tragedy here.
Dwight, you said: “Imagine for a moment with me, what if the person serving as SBC President at this hour was a competent, accomplished, biblically sound, orthodox female who could address the multitude of questions and issues the SBC is facing regarding women issues?”
Are you discriminating against men? Are you saying a man is less capable than a woman, of addressing “the multitude of questions and issues the SBC is facing regarding women issues”? It doesn’t take a Latino to address immigration, nor does it take a woman to address “women issues.” There are plenty of men who are quite capable of addressing “women issues.” So why, I ask, would you prefer a woman over a man to do a job that a man can do?
=====
Dwight, you said: “The two greatest institutional systemic sins that the SBC has practiced throughout her history are racism and sexism.”
Just as the Old Testament Law cannot change a heart, so an SBC president cannot change the hearts of those within its ranks who are guilty of racism or sexism. If anyone in the SBC is guilty of sexism, the solution is for them to repent, not for them to have a woman president.
Dwight, you said: “To deny a woman from serving as a SBC president or vice president is purely sexist from my vantage point.” And you said: “The I Timothy 2:12 passage is reference to local church leadership, not parachurch leadership.”
From a complementary vantage point, it makes perfect sense that men should be chosen for leadership positions within the SBC. It’s not about “sexism,” but complementarianism. Throughout Scripture, God has chosen men to be leaders, not just in homes and churches, but in other spheres. God gave the responsibility of naming the animals to a man (that would be occupational, not a home or church sphere). God chose men to be patriarchs, kings, priests, and prophets (again, neither home, nor church.) When we DO read about a woman prophet, IT WAS AN INDICTMENT AGAINST MEN FOR FAILING TO LEAD! (Judges 4:9) Jesus chose twelve men to be His apostles; that wasn’t to fill leadership positions in a home or church. God chose a man to be the head of the human race insofar as the Fall is concerned (again, neither home, nor church). Ephesians 5 mentions the spiritual relationship between the church and Christ. In that relationship, it is the Man who is the leader (and that’s not a reference to local church leadership). Men are always called to lead. As Nancy Leigh DeMosss once pointed out, even the physiological anatomy of a man’s reproductive organs and a woman’s, shows God’s intention for men to be the initiators, and women to be the responders (and that fact holds true even for those who aren’t part of a church or marriage). You don’t read about God telling a man to let a woman lead him. When a woman leads a man, it’s a symptom of something deeper that needs to be fixed. So you see, it’s much broader than 1 Timothy 2:12. It’s a principle seen throughout Scripture. If a woman were to lead the SBC, I’d call THAT a judgment of God! If any woman was nominated, she would be wise to ask, “Are there not any capable me of leading?”
=====
Dwight, you said: “Could it be that what was intended toward women as evil in the SBC…”
What was intended toward women as evil? Are you saying that choosing capable men all these years as SBC presidents, constitutes evil toward women? Which year in our history, would you say, should we have been honored to have had a female president instead of the one that was elected?
No Nickl, I am complementarian and that is not the Complementarian view. Patriarchal but not complementarian. And why are you quoting, listening or even learning from Nancy Leigh DeMoss if women should not be anything of influence to both men and women in the SBC. That goes against the very arguments you are making. But carry on….. 🙂
I’m sorry I meant Nick. I am still dizzy from Michael Turner’s comment.
Debbie Kaufman, you asked, “why are you quoting, listening or even learning from Nancy Leigh DeMoss if women should not be anything of influence to both men and women in the SBC.”
I listen, learn, and quote from lots of women, such as my wife, my mother, and Nancy Leigh DeMoss. I never said women should not influence men. 1 Peter 3:1-2 talks about women influencing men. The book of Esther is about a woman influencing her husband. Women are either a bad influence (contentious), or a good influence (Pro. 31) on men. My position is as John MacArthur articulates it: women ought not have an ongoing teaching ministry over men. Nancy Leigh DeMoss is not my pastor, so there’s no problem there.
Nick,
You left out a couple of things: There were no women who participated in the last supper, and when Jesus gave the Great Commission, he was speaking to men.
I guess that knocks women out altogether, huh?
You should be ashamed for equating “shows that women have a different role to play than men do”, with “knocks women out.”
Dwight, you said: “There are too many cases of women prophesying to men, in Scripture, publicly…”
Let’s count them all: Miriam (Exodus 15:20-21); Deborah (Judges 4:4-5); Huldah (2 Kings 22:14); Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14); Isaiah’s wife (Isaiah 8:3); false female prophetesses (Ezekiel 13:17); Anna (Luke 2:36); Philip’s four virgin daughters (Acts 21:9; Joel 2:28-29); and “Jezebel” (Revelation 2:20).
The position of the SBC president is not a prophesying position. So to argue, “Since there were prophetesses in the Bible, let’s elect a female SBC president” doesn’t follow logically. That’s like saying, “Since the prophetesses in the Bible were Jewish, let’s elect a Jewish SBC president.” That’s an example of an improper application. We Bible students need to be careful how we cherry-pick certain Bible facts, in order to create a modern day application out of it, lest we be guilty of ripping certain details from their context and creating improper applications. For example, I know someone who tries to justify divorce based on Exodus 21:11, ignoring the fact that that applied to polygamous men who owned slaves! To separate certain details from the larger context, in that way, is mishandling God’s Word. Yes, there were prophetesses, but we can’t look at that detail with blinders on, and try to draw a modern application from that, ignoring the larger context. It’s part of a larger narrative. It’s like trying to make a modern application about coats from Joseph’s coat of many colors, missing the reason why God supplied that detail to us. He didn’t give us that detail in order for us to create applications about coats! Nor did He reveal to us the fact that women prophesied, in order for us to make an application to our SBC presidency.
Moreover, there are “too many” differences between the Biblical Prophet and the SBC president, that one can hardly make any comparison between the two, at all! Unpaid/paid position; unelected/elected position; temporary/hired position; national/denominational leadership; foretelling/forthtelling; and so on. Too many differences. No comparison.
Third, there aren’t Prophets today (Heb. 1:1-2). The Prophets were part of the foundation, and every builder knows that you don’t keep building a foundation once it’s complete, but rather, you build ON a foundation (Eph. 2:20). To liken the SBC president to a Biblical Prophet (male or female), one would have to believe that the Prophet still exists. I’d rather not make that comparison at all, and just say that the SBC president is a new invention having no Biblical parallel.
=====
In summary, do you remember when Paige Patterson said if he were a Calvinist, he’d join the Presbyterians? Well, in that same spirit, I’ll say, if I wanted a denomination lead by a female, I’d join the American Baptists.
There aren’t prophets today? Then what do you do with Acts 2:17-18, Romans 12:6, I Corinthians 12:10, and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16?
Denominations are not mentioned in the Bible, so there aren’t any instructions there regarding the qualifications for their leadership. I Timothy 2:12 specifically references the church. And if you’re going to insist on literally applying that, then I need to ask for how many widows over 60 without relatives is your church providing a living, and when was the last time your men raised their hands in prayer? And do you hold your elders accountable for the behavior of their children?
If I were headed to the convention, I’d be tempted to nominate Dwight McKissic for President of the SBC.
Lee,
Thanks. Excellent biblical response.
I’m given to lengthy responses/writings. I was dreading having to respond because of all the time it would have taken me. You’ve managed in a few brief paragraphs to give the perfect response & did it really far better than I would have.
Nick, Lee has essentially stated to u, everything that I would have said,. Therefore, I totally reject, or find biblically unteneable your position or your response to my post.
Wow, for a second there this sounded so much like the talk of the world I thought I stumbled into a political activist chat room.
Three things… I’ll be brief.
1. The Bible does talk about denominations, even though it doesn’t use that word, and Paul doesn’t like them. (1 Corinthians 1:10-15)
2. We have no rights… Male, female, white black or even turquoise. The day we nailed ourselves to the cross we died to self, dead people have no rights. Everytime we jump into a “fight or quarrel”, cleverly disquised as a debate, to argue equal rights we show that we still love the world, ourselves more than God and that OUR… OUR… OUR… passions are very much at war within us.
3. It doesn’t matter who the president is so why does it matter. I have been through a handful of presidents since I’ve been in the Sbc and I’ve noticed very little practical difference between any of them when messured at my little local Baptist Church. As a matter of fact most of the people I meet while witnessing or serving have no idea what the Sbc is. That being the case I find it hard to believe that the next president is going to make people come flocking back to the SBC regardless of sex or race. In the far out reaches of our denomination there are minister’s and servants breaking there backs to work the tiniest bit of genuine gospel into the world around us and we don’t have time to worry about what the “ruling class” of the Sbc is doing.
It doesn’t matter who the president is. It won’t change people’s hearts only the gospel can. This whole conversation reminds me of the lazarus and the rich man story… The rich man said he wanted lazarus to go to his brothers, that was the answer, lazarus was the special person that could save them all, God said, they have the gospel, THATS ALL THEY NEEDED, THAT WAS THE ANSWER. (paraphrased). The problem is… The church has stopped sharing the gospel, living the gospel and breathing the gospel. So the next president should be whoever can help change the hearts of the local church and Sbc leadership from people who would rather act like pharisees, sitting around arguing law, tradition and rights, into people who actually burn with desire to Follow the will of God. Unfortunately people that squabble about their rights and try to bend to the world in the hopes of higher attendance numbers or a better popular opinion poles rarely are the ones that nourish the gospel.
Sorry… I wasn’t very brief.
Lee, you said: “what do you do with Acts 2:17-18, Romans 12:6, I Corinthians 12:10, and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16?”
Acts 2:17-18 was a quotation of Joel. I believe Peter was saying that Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled right there and then (v. 16). I don’t believe Joel’s prophecy is being fulfilled today.
Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 11:3-16; 12:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:20 – I believe the term “prophet” morphed into a more generic sense, referring to anyone who spoke for the Lord. I see the Biblical prophets, like Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel as something MORE than that generic type of prophet. Perhaps I should call them heavyweight Prophets. It is THAT kind of prophet which I believe is extinct. THOSE prophets added to Scripture. Today, people who “speak on behalf of the Lord” are not adding to Scripture; they’re just saying what’s already been written. It’s sort of like the reverse of the term “deacon.” In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a “diakonon” (I recall Paige Patterson teaching on that passage and pointing out that Phoebe could have been a man’s name, just as Paige can be a man’s name). When Romans was written, there wasn’t a fully-defined office of deacon. A few decades later, when 1 Timothy 3 was written, there was a well-defined office of deacon. Thus, we say that Phoebe, if she was a female, wasn’t holding a full-fledged office of deacon as depicted in 1 Timothy 3; she was a servant, but not a deacon in the 1 Timothy 3 sense of the term. So it is with prophets. Anybody who speaks on behalf of the Lord may be called a “prophet,” but they should not equate that with the Biblical Prophets, who foretold the future, whose writings became inscripturated, and who helped form the foundation of the church. That kind of Prophet no longer exists, because the foundation is not still being built.
Lee said: “Denominations are not mentioned in the Bible, so there aren’t any instructions there regarding the qualifications for their leadership.”
True, there aren’t any explicit instructions, but I tried to demonstrate earlier that if God expects men to lead in all the spheres that ARE mentioned in the Bible, isn’t it right to assume that He expects men to lead in spheres that are not mentioned in the Bible? I mean, you can’t say, “Since the Bible doesn’t mention automobiles, then the general principle in Romans 13:1 doesn’t apply; so it’s okay to break the speed limit.” What makes a denomination so unique as to warrant an exception to the general rule that God gave us? This principle throughout Scripture is why I wouldn’t vote for a woman to be the president of the U.S.A. Countries with women Prime Ministers send a message to the world that that country doesn’t have any men willing or able to lead. THAT is the message that would reverberate around the world if the SBC elects a woman president—that there are no men able or willing to lead. There’s a word for men who are not able or willing to lead: “effeminate” (Gk. “malakoi”, 1 Cor. 6:9).
Lee said: “I Timothy 2:12 specifically references the church. And if you’re going to insist on literally applying that, then I need to ask for how many widows over 60 without relatives is your church providing a living, and when was the last time your men raised their hands in prayer? And do you hold your elders accountable for the behavior of their children?”
I wasn’t the one who brought up 1 Timothy 2:12. I was the one who tried to show that even in non-church and non-home spheres, God expects men to lead women. As to the widow question, all the widows in our church happen to have children who can provide for them, so they don’t qualify for church support. The question about raising hands…it says “holy hands,” not just hands. Since we know that fleshly hands, literally, are not holy, I believe the phrase “holy hands” is a figure of speech, like “clean hands,” referring to a life that is right in God’s sight. When we pray, we need to make sure our lives are right with God. God doesn’t want us to just go through the motions of prayer if we have “blood on our hands” (another figure of speech; it doesn’t mean literal blood has to be on our hands to be guilty of having “blood on our hands” – Matthew 27:25). In Matthew 27:24, Pilate went through a ritual of washing his hands, not because they were dirty, but as a symbol that he was clearing himself of any charges against him (of course, he was still guilty). In a similar way, God wants our lives to be clear of any offense when we come before Him in prayer, and He uses the expression “lifting holy hands” to say so. It’s not that God cares to see our hands literally raised in the air, as if that accomplished anything spiritual. I think the end of 1 Timothy 2:8 defines the Apostle’s intention with the phrase, “holy hands”, namely: “without wrath and doubting.”
I appreciate your explanations, and the detail. I tend to see the use of the term “Prophet” as one of those words that evolves in usage over time, as this one certainly did during the relatively lengthy period that it took to write the whole Bible. It’s a multi-definition term, even as applied to scripture. You referenced Hebrews 1:1-2, which focuses on the specific type of prophecy and prophet that God used to reveal himself and his will to Israel. And you’re correct to state that the existence of a female prophetess during that period of time doesn’t mean that role can be used as an example for a female serving in a denominational leadership position today. But the broader, more general definition of the term prophecy is a reference to the proclamation of the word of the Lord, and one who proclaims is a “prophet”, something that both men and women can do, according to the NT scriptures I cited. So “prophesying” must not fall into the category of a woman having authority or teaching a man, or it would be contradictory to Paul’s words in I Timothy. It must also not be that prophesying is an expected duty of the elders of the church because women are clearly allowed to do it, but if you literally interpret I Timothy 2:12, they can’t be elders. I mentioned the other things in I Timothy because you were following a literal interpretation of “prophet” and I was attempting to consistently follow your interpretation.
My Baptist roots, and the theological training I got at a Baptist university and subsequently at a seminary, leads me to conclude that the only offices in the church, which is a local body of baptized believers, are elders and deacons, and the only one that a literal rendering of several verses in the qualifications, combined with I Timothy 2:12 actually applies to is elder, if you can show me where an elder is a ruling authority, not a servant. The Southern Baptist Convention is not a church, it is a gathering of members from hundreds of churches that exists for two days. The president of the Southern Baptist Convention is not an elder or a deacon, or a pastor, or an episkopos, or an officer of the church. Therefore, a woman can be elected to that position without having any authority over a man in any sense where it would violate the scripture.
The comments Nick have posted are well worth noting, praying upon, considering, debating and holding up as logical
Dr. McKissic, I enjoyed reading your viewpoint. I must admit, though, that the picture you paint of Dr. Ken Hemphill is more appealing to me than that of Dr. J.D. Greear, notwithstanding his display of humility last year.
>> The admonition to “be ye kind” is an important biblical standard especially in a servant leader and it seems like Dr. Hemphill has shown that without reservation.
>> In Dr. Greear’s case, there seems to be something that raises some amount of trepidation within me. I wonder if the information I saw on his church blog, the articles concerning women/elders/authoritative preaching, is simply an updated view of the very thing we think Dr. Patterson erroneously advocated? For example, what do you think of this quote: “1. At The Summit Church, can a woman teach in a formal church setting, like a large Sunday School class or an evening Bible study? Yes, but not if she does so in a way that “mimics” the teaching authority of an elder.” (found here https://jdgreear.com/blog/can-women-teach-in-the-church/ )
In Christ’s service always…
Debbi,
U are correct.Hemphill based on history would perhaps be the better candidate as it relates to affirming women in ministry in line with Scripture. I think “saying that they should not teach as elders or in ‘elder like ways’ “ is a statement that begs explanation, and almost an example as to illustrate/explain what’s meant by that. I understand your retinence.
I admit to not being familiar with your ministry, Pastor, but I wonder how many pastors and theologians in the SBC agree with you. Is it not yet time to realize that the 2000 amendment was based on a selective reading of Scripture? I chose to major in English and not Bible because I knew there would be few opportunities in SBC seminaries. I don’t regret doing unpaid lay ministry, but I wonder how many women gifted to teach have left the denomination.
The SBC should not hold up Beth Moore as an example for their organization if they believe Holy Word of God. She speaks as though she gets special revelation from God – Scripture is our revelation! And, she teaches men and that is unscriptural. She needs to read the Bible and seek forgiveness and use Elizabeth Elliot as an example who would not preach to men on Sunday. There are other great and different views that can be seen and read such as John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul on women’s roles in the church.
Tim those are tired, unfair accusations against Beth Moore. She believes God still speaks to his people today in different ways, as many believers do, while at the same time believing the Bible is the only inerrant revelation that judges all subjective experience.
And many people disagree with your understanding of Paul’s prohibition against women teaching or having authority. I believe Paul is mainly teaching that women are not to be elders/pastors of churches. He’s not saying a woman is wrong to teach you something. I hope I could learn from anyone who studies the Word and understands it well. If Beth knows facts about the Bible that you don’t, you would plug your ears and refuse to listen?
While I take issue with Beth Moore’s continuationism, I understand that their are orthodox continuationists. However, the “God told me” or “God gave me this message” is more problematic; but unfortunately is used by so many pastors and preachers that it is almost meaningless in modern Evangelicalism.
What is not meaningless is why I would never support Moore’s appointment to any office or recommend her to any member of my congregation; her continual misuse of Scripture through “spiritualizing” the text. Her tweet about lifting up and breaking down the other day is a perfect example. Even if you agree with her point (I do), how she goes about making it is horrendous hermeneutically; and demonstrates a pattern of Bible understanding and teaching she has used for years to teach emotionalism based upon the “feeling” one gets from a text. It is a terrible example to Christians as to how the Bible works and should be read or studied.
One of the biggest problems “celebrity preachers” create is a false view of hermeneutics. Too often, once we elevate a good teacher to “celebrity” status, usually on the basis of a sermon or two, we end up recommending an entire branch of bad Bible understanding unsuspecting congregations. See Mark Driscoll’s “propheticness”, Steven Furtick’s eisegesis, Andy Stanley’s Marcion-like “mere Christianity”, and the like. Moore is a perpetrator of similarly bad hermeneutics that are excused because she is relatable, likeable, and humble.
I am 100% convinced that God still speaks today, but even so, every time someone says something like “God told me..”, “God showed me..” I cringe. Even with my own experiences if I THINK/FEEL that way I would hesitate to express it that way because it comes across as having more authority than it should.
Kimberly,
Does God speak to you to tell others what He wants?
When someone does that, they are assuming an authoritative position as a messnger of God Himself. But often such people are wrong, both because what they say is against clear words in the Bible or their ‘prediction’ doesnt happen.
Also, how does the listener know if the one speaking to them a word from God isnt deceived? How do they know if the speaker for God[if it was for God] didnt get the message garbled?
Hebrews 1;1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things. The Son, the Word of God, has spoken, do we need more words from God? Isn’t the Bible sufficient, isn’t the Word sufficient? Isn’t the Son Himself sufficient?
Now canI relay a word from the Word to you? Of course. But that is not a new word from God, but rather a word from the sufficient Word of God.
Josh Buice, founder of the g3 Conference said this on his blog:
“Beth Moore relates the story of a woman who approached her during a conference with a message from God:
With obvious anointing, she told the story we’re about to study, then she said: “I don’t know you Beth. I have no idea why God sent me with such a message to give you, but He told me clearly to say these words to you: ‘Tell her that her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much.’” [2][Beth Moore, Jesus the One and Only, (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2013), 91.]
Notice that Beth Moore claimed the woman had an “obvious anointing” from God. To attach God’s name to a special message that doesn’t originate between Genesis and Revelation is to open yourself up to extrabiblical revelation and to deny the sufficiency of Scripture.” -end quote- [http://www.deliveredbygrace.com/?s=moore
Also note that the word she had was backwards from the Scripture. The truth is that we love more because we have been forgiven more, not that we are forgiven because we “love much”
Also please note that I am not putting any of this on you. I am not, for I know you not. The Holy Spirit does witness to our Spirit. But the words we proclaim to others as God’s truth should be words from the Word of God.
Blessings.
Hi Michael,
I’m curious do you believe that God speaks/communicates in any ways? Since I don’t know you it’s hard to know where to begin or how far off our starting places are. At any rate, it probably doesn’t matter too much because I don’t see any point to try to convince you (or anyone here) to believe me. I was simply stating my opinion.
So you asked does God speak to me to tell others what He wants? Hm. Would you think that preachers do that sometimes? Do you think that the Holy Spirit reveals to them things to say? I do. Do I see it the way that the lady approaching Ms. Moore in your story does? No, I have never done that.
So about me, I am a skeptical person by nature. I have a degree in statistics by training (not that I use much of it anymore..). I am very cautious about thinking that “coincidental” events can’t just occur naturally due to random chance, and I almost never say anything with absolute certainty (like 0 or 100%) as I did previously. I didn’t grow up in church, but when I did become a Christian I was most definitely a cessationist. So I absolutely understand your points above. But there have been times that I felt like I was being instructed or led (communicated to) in certain ways. And through prayer and asking for clarity and wisdom in the matter, I have seen things happen that I simply can’t attribute to chance. Not always, but often, it has come specifically through preachers, many that I don’t know. If I have been deceived it would be bad enough, but if I have then they are deceived as well and not only that but sharing it to their entire congregation which I would say is much worse.
So you ask about how a listener knows if the one speaking isn’t deceived? Or how they know that if it was God that the message didn’t get garbled? I suppose the same way you do when you are listening to a preacher’s or teacher’s instruction I suppose? Test it against the Word. But I mentioned earlier that even if I think something is from God I would hesitate to express it that way. Usually I test it against the word of God and study. I am always hesitant. I will probably have an anxiety attack after writing this because I don’t like to talk about it and speaking like this is too vulnerable for my taste. Usually anyway I just say what I think but I never say that God told me this or that.
Aside from that, something I find confusing is sometimes I feel inspired to pray for particular things that normally I would not do. And then when I pray then the strange request has come to pass. Now I don’t know how that works entirely. Is that a form of communicating that I should suddenly make an odd request that God just so happens to desire to answer? Or is the Holy Spirit in some way communicating to me to ask with the intention of Him answering? I have no idea. It is a great and confusing mystery to me and I can’t pretend to know how all of this works.
[OH WOW— there’s a word limit? Sorry!]
Continuing.. so you asked if the Word or the Son is not sufficient. Of course the Bible and the Son are sufficient in all ways and things. But just because He NEED NOT say more does not mean that He would not, could not, must not say more.
Am I to believe that a God who loved us so much and has been communicating and reconciling us to Himself all along, who suffered and died and rose again to pay the penalty of our sin in our place would suddenly lose interest in communicating? This God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? I think He does not need to reveal anything to us, but He is free to do so if He wants in any way that He wants.
As I said before, I am a skeptical person, but I think holding the view that God would not communicate anymore can have more to do with our comfort with Reason than Faith.
You are free to not believe a word I’ve said, or to think I’m mistaken. That’s okay. That would be my tendency too.
Sorry, as a point of clarification, the speaking didn’t come through preachers, however a confirmation of the impression came through preachers oftentimes.
Just wait until you are in a worship service and a deacon gets up to tell you what God has told him we should do. When we plan it the way he told us, it does not work. The point: God didn’t tell him anything.
If you believe God still speaks, fine; we are not enemies. I just see no point to your telling me He speaks to you when the 1st thing either one of us should do is run to the Scriptures to understand how to know the difference between true and false “words” from God.
Sorry guys, I didn’t see anyone had responded until now and I can’t give a proper response yet. I will try to get to it sometime today if possible.
I agree. We aren’t enemies. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything in this conversation, I was just throwing in my opinion. Take care!
Her tweet the other day (the one you mention) was a perfectly good example of redemptive-historical application. Nothing in the world wrong with it.
In only the highest possible technical language can I say; nuh-uh. She took an outworking of the Divine power of Jesus and read herself (and all of womanhood) into the girls place. This eisegesis makes the story about her and what Jesus will do for her and not about: what Jesus did, how Jesus could do it, why Jesus did it.
While I agree with the point she was making, I disagree with the hermeneutics she used to get there. If you want a verse about Jesus lifting people out of oppression, then apply rightly those passages. Do not rob Jesus by removing Him from being the point of the narrative and insert yourself into it.
That distinction is the point I was making above. She means well, and teaches good application; but uses horrendous Bible-handling techniques to get there. She “spiritualizes” the text rather than exegeting it.
Michael L: I disagree with Steve Gaines interpretation of scripture yet I was fine with him being President and still think he is one of a few wonderful Presidents. I am a continualist but do not mind if others disagree just as long as you do not try to change my view and make it a matter of fellowship which you are. What possible part of the President position has to do with their being continualist or not? And why would you make it more important an issue than it is, which is small. Read Brett’s answer. That is the answer that would fit your comment too I think.
I did not base my view that she is unqualified on her continuationist theology. I think that she is wrong about that, but never made it a fellowship issue. I based it upon a pattern of years of Bible teaching that demonstrate she does not employ a healthy hermeneutic. I can disagree with an interpretation and still agree with the method of arriving at it. I love John MacArthur, but think he is wrong about eschatology. I understand how he gets there.
Too often with Beth Moore, I do not see how she gets to her application; even if I agree with her application. That is because she uses a “spiritualizing” hermeneutic that is not grounded in the historical understanding of the text.
Debbie,
If someone stood up and said theyhad a word from the Lord, and God says that all the sign gifts now cease, would you accept that word or disagree with it? I believe you would disagree with it. You would consider it NOT from the Lord. But if that person stood up and said, I have a word from theLord, the sign gifts are true for today, you woud accept it as being from God.
The point is, such ‘words’ are untrustworthy as’words from the Lord.’ Yet our sister, Beth M. relies on them and promotes them. We have the Word, the Bible, and it is sufficient. Those in places of influence and power who do not 100% ascribe to that are dangerous to the sheep, no matter what their intentions.
I would have thought it was time to do away with the presidency altogether ?