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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
I would have thought it was time to do away with the presidency altogether ?