The Strange Belief that a Woman Cannot Teach a Man the Bible
There have been one or two commentators on this blog who have defended the view of Paige Patterson that a woman cannot teach a man 'doctrine' from the Bible. Dr. Sheri Klouda was forced out of Southwestern Theological Seminary because she taught men the language of the Old Testament and how to properly exegete the Hebrew Scriptures. She was forced out of her position because she was a woman. Some have acted as if Dr. Patterson's view of women is 'Southern Baptist.' Thank God, it is not. In fact, in this post I will show that for a woman to 'preach' (proclaim the truth) or 'teach' men is not contrary to the views of the SWBTS trustees who hired Dr. Klouda in 2002, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, and the very Bible itself.
The extraordinary belief that women should be forbidden from teaching men the Bible, or 'doctrine,' is held by only a handful of Southern Baptist leaders, including at least one agency head and a few strategically placed trustees in various agencies. Unfortunately, the majority of Southern Baptists let them dictate policy for the entire convention.
Let me reiterate for those who rarely read posts and jump straight to the comment section: This post is not addressing the 'office' of pastor. The BFM 2000 does that quite clearly. This post is gently rebuking those who would justify the removal of a female Hebrew professor, as well as a female history professor in 2004, simply because they are women teaching men the Bible.
The Trustees of SWBTS
It can easily be said that the belief which leads to the forbidding of a woman professor teaching a man Hebrew, or 'biblical doctrine,' or giving that woman a 'position' of authority in the classroom over men, was not the predominate belief of the Southwestern Theological Seminary trustees in 2002. Those 2002 trustees are the ones who unanimously hired Dr. Klouda to the position of professor of Hebrew at SWBTS at the recommendation of Dr. Ken Hemphill.
It can also be said that this extraordinarily narrow belief that a woman should not teach a man Hebrew, or 'Biblical doctrine,' is the view of President Paige Patterson who was hired as President of SWBTS in 2003, after giving his promise that he had no intention of removing women from the theology faculty (see June 24, 2003 press conference and this article about a private meeting with faculty in 2003). It is obvious that Paige Patterson's narrow view of women led him to force Dr. Klouda out of her position as professor of Hebrew. Since my post went public, several people have emailed me saying that there is at least one other female on SWBTS faculty who has been forced out due to gender, but unfortunately, I do not have enough information to verify if that is the case or not. Nevertheless, Southern Baptists need to realize that just ONE unjust forced removal of an SBC employee based upon gender is ONE too many. If we don't correct the problem, the courts may correct it for us. The plea of immunity may not hold water when the forced removal based on gender is an action that is CONTRARY to the position of our convention's offical statement of doctrine.
I have said over and over for the past year that the very serious problem in the SBC is the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation by demanding conformity on very rigid doctrinal interpretations of Scripture. In other words, there are a handful of influential people in the SBC who are seeking to impose their doctrinal interpretations on the entire convention -- interpretations that go FAR beyond our BFM 2000. If we do not speak up and speak out, regarding various interpretations with which we disagree, including this view that a women cannot teach a man, then we might just find those narrow views becoming convention policy post de facto (after the act) -- after several women have been hurt by our leaders' actions.
In Dr. Klouda's case, it is possible that SWBTS trustees were never informed that Dr. Klouda was being forced out because she was a women. It is feasible that Dr. Klouda never said anything about her gender discrimination out of fear of not being able to obtain good references for future employment. The SWBTS trustees will need to answer what they did know, and what they did not know, about the circumstances related to the quiet removal of Dr. Klouda because of gender. However, it is a matter of public record that SWBTS trustees in 2002 had absolutely no problem with a woman teaching Hebrew to men or teaching men how to properly exegete the Bible (more than half the Bible is written in Hebrew). For a very successful and highly acclaimed professor to be forced out by the President because she is a woman, possibly puts SWBTS in serious legal jeopardy, not to mention accreditaion problems and the angst in the hearts of a majority of Southern Baptists who always demand that we treat our convention empoloyees in a moral, ethical and Christian manner.
The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message
The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 does not forbid a woman from 'preaching,' 'teaching,' or 'proclaiming' the gospel of Jesus Christ to men. Dr. Bill Merrill and Suzie Hawkins, two of the most conservative Southern Baptists I have ever known, have spoken publicly and on the record regarding this specific issue. Bill is the former VP of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee and Suzie Hawkins is the wife of O.S. Hawkins, President of the Annuity Board of the SBC. Suzie happened to be a member of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Committee. The following is taken directly from a Baptist Press news article dated June 7, 2001 where both Bill and Suzie respond to an interview with Ann Graham Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham, and an alleged misunderstanding by the CBS interviewer regarding what the BFM 2000 has to say about women. The interview in question was from a broadcast on CBS Television News Program '60 Minutes.' ---
Susie Hawkins of Dallas, a member of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee, shares Lotz's desire to see women empowered for Christian service. But Hawkins suspects the characterization that there can be no women preachers in the SBC as a mistatement of the BFM 2000 (My editorial comment: Suzie uses the word "preachers" intentially instead of "pastors." 'Preach' is Gk. kerusso which means to 'proclaim' - as a rooster proclaims the rising of the sun --- preachers proclaim the risen SON). Again, to say there can be no woman preachers in the SBC is a misstatement of the SBC's doctrinal statement. Instead, she said, Article 6 of the BFM, dealing with the Church, states that "the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
Hawkins added, "Nowhere does it say that women can't proclaim the gospel. In fact, it is in this article that women are affirmed in the statement as being 'gifted for service.'" Hawkins noted that Lotz "never pressed the issue of women pastoring" in the 60 Minutes interview, but related the example of Mary Magdalene bringing the message of Christ to others.
Her suspicion seems to be confirmed in an interview of Lotz by Jim Jones of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram last year. Lotz stated that she agreed with conservatives who say a woman should not be a senior pastor. "I know Christians disagree on this issue, but I believe God has called me into the ministry where I am," she said.
Hawkins added, "In our own Southern Baptist tradition we have the obvious examples of missionaries Lottie Moon and Bertha Smith who were used greatly by God. But Mary Magdalene was not the spiritual authority for the disciples. She was their co-laborer, their partner in spreading the gospel."
From other interviews, Lotz has stated that she does not see herself as assuming an authoritative role when teaching. "I feel when I stand up in a pulpit I'm not coming from a position of authority," she said in an April 5, 1999, Christianity Today article. "Everywhere I go, I'm invited; if men have invited me [to speak], I'm under the authority of that committee. But I don't accept the fact that as a woman I can't preach to or teach men. My authority is the authority of God's Word." (WB's editorial comment: This is exactly what Suzie Hawkins and the BFM 2000 Committee say the BFM 2000 means)
Hawkins also disputed the characterization of the BFM Study Committee as "an elitist group of men that issued some decree." Instead, she reminded, the committee was appointed in 1999 by then-SBC President Paige Patterson and included theologians, ministers and laymen, with two of the participants being women. "Upon the discussion of the issue of women in ministry, I am eager for others to know that the men on the committee were more than willing to hear the women's perspective." Once the revised statement was submitted to Southern Baptist messengers meeting last June in Orlando, Fla., it was approved overwhelmingly as the new doctrinal statement for the largest non-Catholic denomination.
Bill Merrell, SBC Executive Committee vice president for convention relations, agreed that the reference to the decision by messengers to last year's convention was misapplied in the case of the 60 Minutes interview. "The Southern Baptist Convention position is plainly stated in the Baptist Faith and Message that we understand the pastoral office to be reserved to men as qualified in the Scripture. To my knowledge, Anne Graham Lotz makes no claim to be a pastor. She exhorts and teaches and does so, I think, with a high degree of excellence."
(END)
Unlike some in our convention who wish to use the BFM 2000 as a 'doctrinal' club, I affirm the right for those who forbid a woman to teach or preach the Bible to disagree with the position of the BFM 2000. I will, however, seek to hold accountable those who forcibly exclude Southern Baptists from service and employment in cooperative areas of ministry in the SBC for doctrinal reasons that go beyond the BFM 2000.
We have all kinds of examples of women teaching men in Baptist history. Spurgeon learned the doctrines of grace from his family's female cook. Lady Huntington taught many Baptist men the Scriptures in her home in the 18th century. Lottie Moon led several men to faith in Christ in China and discipled them quite vigorously. Mrs. Criswell taught men the Bible in the auditorium of FBC for years. LIFEWAY clears $750,000 every time Beth Moore holds a Bible conference in a major city, and not everyone present is of the female persuasion. Where would we be without our own mothers? I could go on, and on, and on. Some have countered these examples with a notion that a woman can teach the Bible to a 'boy' until he reaches the age of twelve, as one commentor on my blog proposed, but that absurdity reminds me more of the Pharisees of Jesus day, and many radical fundamentalists in the Middle East in our own day, than the Southern Baptists I have known and loved for the past 45 years.
Let's get it straight. Women can teach and preach the Bible. They have. They will. They shall continue. The BFM 2000 affirms this. So does the Bible.
The Holy Bible Clearly Affirms Women Teaching Men
What is really odd to me is the fact that all the passages in the New Testament which speak of women prophesying (I Corinthians 11:5), participating in the gifts on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), being equal to men (Galatians 3:28), and multiple other texts, too numerous to mention here, are all ignored to jump to I Timothy 2:12 and Paul's statement to Timothy "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man."
There are many ways to interpret this verse. The BFM 2000 Committee applies this verse, and others, to a prohibition of women serving in the office of pastor. Let me be clear, again,that this post is not an attempt to oppose the prohibition of women pastors. As stated, there are other texts that deal with that particular subject. Dr. Klouda did not desire to be a pastor. Dr. Klouda was not ordained to the ministry. Dr. Klouda AFFIRMED THE BFM 2000.
She was removed as a professor because a very narrow interpretation of this verse that says a 'woman' is forbidden to hold a position of 'authority' over a man or 'teach' a man --- period. This verse, according to those who hold this narrow view, goes far beyond the office of pastor. WOMEN SHOULD BE MOTHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS - and they should not hold a position of authority over a man, whether it be a professor, teacher, police officer, president, etc . . . and for heaven's sake, they should NEVER teach the BIBLE to a man. I wish to show this interpreation cannot be upheld by a proper exegesis of the text.
I believe every word of the Bible. I am an inerrantist. I believe every statement of I Timothy 2. But my interpretation of I Timothy 2 is consistent with the rest of the Bible and exalts women to their proper New Covenant position. The following is an exegesis of I Timothy 2 that has been graciously provided by evangelical conservative Pastor Dave Johnson and his fellow elders at The Church of the Open Door. This church, a large, conservative evangelical fellowship of believers in Minneapolis, Minnesota has reached thousands of people for Christ. I believe the following will be a help to all us Southern Baptist pastors who are trying to resist this very narrow view of women not that is creeping into the SBC, allegedly based upon I Timothy 2.
Again, this exegesis is to deal exclusively with women’s roles as they relate to I Timothy 2:9-15. Again, there is NO attempt in this post to justify women pastors. I am showing that the the narrow interpretation of I Timothy 2 which leads some to remove women as professors of Hebrew and theology because they 'teach men' the Bible cannot be justified from I Timothy 2. The first portion deals with the exegetical approach. The next section deals with the actual exegesis of I Timothy 2, and the last section provides conclusions.
1. Grammatical Integrity
This involves the use of original languages. We need to know what is really being said.
2. Historical Integrity
An understanding of the historic and cultural events that surround Apostolic letters gives insight into why certain things are being taught and exhorted. Failing to work in this arena results in incorrect or shallow application.
3. Contextual Integrity
Through the verse by verse study we do every week, we have comet o appreciate the importance of staying with the context. It helps avoid ‘eisegesis’, i.e. Philippians 4:13.
4. Distinguish Between Timeless Truth and Temporary Regulation
Timeless truth = love God/Ten Commandments/ Salvation by Grace/
Temporary Regulation = Deuteronomy 23:12-13/ Acts 15:8-11, 19-21
It is obvious that at first glance this passage creates some serious problems, not only as it relates to women in ministry, but also to women in general.
Verse 12
This verse seems to cement forever the role of women in the church as that of silent, behind the scenes support. Is that what Paul meant with these words?
When Paul came to Ephesus with the gospel originally, the Power of God rocked that city. Literally thousands were saved and it even effected the economy (Acts 19:17-29). You can be sure that among those saved were temple priestess prostitutes, priests, and leaders of false religions. Under Paul’s leadership, teaching was solid, and lifestyles were changed. Under Timothy’s leadership false teaching and sloppy living were eroding the work of God in the church.
Side Note #1
Historically, one of the greatest enemies to pure biblical doctrine is a phenomenon called syncretism. This is the blending of Christian doctrines with pagan doctrines so they coexist. We saw this illustrated clearly when we went through I Corinthians. It was also happening in Ephesus. Josephus records that Clement of Alexandria complained in his Memoirs that Christian groups had turned their communion services into drunken orgies. This was clear syncretism. Throughout the Greco-Roman world there were various groups who called themselves Christians that combined worship, teaching, and sexual immorality. This syncretism was part of what Timothy faced.
Side Note #2
Because I Timothy is a personal letter, some of these problems are not directly spelled out in the text. The reason for that is because both Paul and Timothy had common knowledge of the situation at Ephesus. In fact, Paul is most likely responding point by point to the issues Timothy raised to Paul in a previous letter. This again illustrates why history and context are so vital to accurate application.
Timeless Truth of Temporary Regulation
If Paul’s prohibition of women to teach or exercise authority is a timeless truth, there is a problem with other areas of scripture in which women are involved in ministry activity, and with Paul’s experience. Even the Ephesian church had been established in part by the skillful teaching of a Godly woman named Priscilla. She and her husband Aquila taught Apollos when he first came to Ephesus with an inadequate knowledge of the Gospel (Acts 18:18-28). Timothy knew all about Priscilla! Do you think Paul would consider a ban on women teaching a timeless truth that reflected the Divine order of things? I Don’t!
Grammatical Integrity
A closer look at the Greek word for authority (authenten) is helpful. This is a rare Greek verb that appears no where else in the New Testament and only on rare occasions to Greek literature. The usage in classical Greek is one of the only resources to shed light on the meaning of this word. The most basic rendering translates: ‘to thrust oneself’. It almost always carries, however, vulgar connotations of a sexual nature. Some evidence indicates that authenten involves a soliciting of sexual liaisons. St. John Chrysostem (400 A.D.) in his commentary on I Timothy, translated authenten as ‘sexual license’. In lengthy description of various tribal practices, the Byzantine Historiographer Michael Glycas uses authenten to describe women ‘who make sexual advances to men and fornicate as much as they please’.
Add the above information to what we know historically and culturally about Ephesus. It’s a center for pagan cults with immoral practices Syncretism was clearly at work and manifesting itself through false teaching. Paul had already warned the women who were not dressing modestly – literally wearing the garb of temple prostitutes (braided hair), but now he prohibited them from teaching or using sexual manipulation to gain influence in the church (as was the common temple practice). Instead, these women are to quietly learn correct doctrine and change their lifestyles.
As we come to verses 13-14 it appears to get stickier because Paul is apparently appealing to creation itself to explain why women can’t teach but must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
More History
Related to the various cults and misguided Christian groups we’ve already discussed was the most powerful movement called Gnosticism. Among the many heresies was teaching that proposed women possessed superior intellectual and spiritual knowledge and in fact had priority in creation. They proposed further, that Eve was born before Adam and had a special knowledge that Adam did not have. These heresies were rampant in the early church era, but especially in places like cult centered Ephesus. An understanding and awareness of the active heresies help us unlock the meanings of these verses.
A Paraphrase
Women, you will not be allowed to sexually manipulate men to gain power and authority in church, the way you used to do it in the pagan temple. In fact, I do not allow you to teach at all. Instead, you need to quietly sit and receive instruction with entire submission! And while we’re on this thing, why don’t you wear decent clothes? You look like whores! Don’t try to blend pagan teaching with Christian doctrine. Eve wasn’t created first – Adam was! And Eve didn’t have any special knowledge hidden to Adam. In fact, she was the one who was first deceived. If she had so much special insight, why was she deceived at all?
Verse 15
This verse seems to indicate that women are saved or preserved by childbearing. What does this mean? Is it true? Really? How many children would be enough to preserve a woman? What about single women? Infertile women? Infertile husbands? Maybe something else is going on historically or culturally in Ephesus that will help make sense of this.
Contextual Integrity
The context of this epistle reveals that it was a personal letter from Paul to his good friend Timothy, who was the Pastor at the church in Ephesus. It is clear that Timothy was struggling in his ministry for a number of reasons. One reason is that he was a bit timid and easily intimidated. The founder of the church was Paul, and the sheer force of his bold and confrontive style had kept the wolves at bay. Those wolves, however, were moving in on Timothy.
The most obvious expression of their presence came in the form of false teaching (Gnosticism), and syncretism of pagan religions with Christianity (1:3-10). In chapter two he begins to deal with the people who were apparently using public meetings to air disputes. From those specific problems he zeros in on some inappropriate behavior among the women.
Apparently some of the women were dressing in a manner that was indiscreet and inappropriate: indeed immodest. Some work on history will help explain this.
Historical Integrity
Ephesus was the center for a number of pagan cults and religions. The most prolific was the worship of Diana and Artemis. A significant part of worship in their temples included the involvement of temple priestess prostitutes. These women, who numbered in the thousands, were more educated than the common Greek women, more cosmopolitan, and may be compared to a high class call girl.
Marriages in those days were arranged for convenience. The result was that Greek men used their wives for producing their heirs and cooking their meals, but went elsewhere for friendship, companionship, and sex. This was a common and accepted practice; that’s just the way it was. Add to this cultural reality, a religious element. Their pagan religion taught that the highest level of communion with the gods was attained through sexual intercourse. Euphoria was a sign that you had ‘made contact’.
Verse 15 still troubles, but there are legitimate possibilities. Keeping with the context, Paul may be indicating to these women that even if they have borne illegitimate children because of their participating in cultic activities, they will still be preserved if they repent in faith, and continue in love and holiness.
If that explanation is not acceptable, then we must also reject the face value idea that proposes women are somehow saved by bearing children. It simply is not true! Thousands of redeemed women have never had children! Sometimes it’s because they’re single, sometimes it’s a physical problem, sometimes it’s because of their devotion to ministry.
Michelson: “This verse seems to point to women’s role in bringing
into the world a godly posterity.”
I Corinthians 11:12 may also shed some light.
In my opinion, this passage is not a timeless truth that forever prohibits women from positions of authority and teaching. There are however, timeless truths in this text. Don’t let people without understanding teach. They should receive instruction in all submissiveness before they give instruction. Morality and purity in living is also a timeless truth that is called for here! Another timeless truth is that you confront false teaching out loud! Don’t try to coexist!
Daughters of the Church; Walter Liefeld / Ruth A. Tucker
No Time for Silence; Janette Hassey
Women at the Crossroads; Karl Tojeson Malcolm
Reformed Journal; Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb;
Richard & Catherine Kroeger
Reformed Journal: May Women Teach?; Richard & Catherine Kroeger
Women in the Church; Berkeley Michelson
My Personal Conclusions About Dr. Klouda and the SBC
There are two issues surrounding Dr. Klouda. There is the issue of broken integrity when it comes to things said, and actions done, toward Dr. Sheri Klouda by the administration of SWBTS.
But then, to me, there is even a deeper issue that faces us as a convention. We have already placed a prohibition regarding women pastors in the BFM 2000. Are there those who are now desiring that we place in our BFM 2000 a statement that no woman shall teach a man the Bible?
If so, we will be violating our own history, the examples of women teaching men in Scipture itself, and the principles of the New Covenant gospel. It's time we as Southern Baptist stopped the creeping demand for conformity in the acceptance of a very narrow and strict interpretation of texts like I Timothy 2.
It is not too late to do something.
And we owe it to the future women of the Southern Baptist Convention -- not to mention Dr. Sheri Klouda.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
The extraordinary belief that women should be forbidden from teaching men the Bible, or 'doctrine,' is held by only a handful of Southern Baptist leaders, including at least one agency head and a few strategically placed trustees in various agencies. Unfortunately, the majority of Southern Baptists let them dictate policy for the entire convention.
Let me reiterate for those who rarely read posts and jump straight to the comment section: This post is not addressing the 'office' of pastor. The BFM 2000 does that quite clearly. This post is gently rebuking those who would justify the removal of a female Hebrew professor, as well as a female history professor in 2004, simply because they are women teaching men the Bible.
The Trustees of SWBTS
It can easily be said that the belief which leads to the forbidding of a woman professor teaching a man Hebrew, or 'biblical doctrine,' or giving that woman a 'position' of authority in the classroom over men, was not the predominate belief of the Southwestern Theological Seminary trustees in 2002. Those 2002 trustees are the ones who unanimously hired Dr. Klouda to the position of professor of Hebrew at SWBTS at the recommendation of Dr. Ken Hemphill.
It can also be said that this extraordinarily narrow belief that a woman should not teach a man Hebrew, or 'Biblical doctrine,' is the view of President Paige Patterson who was hired as President of SWBTS in 2003, after giving his promise that he had no intention of removing women from the theology faculty (see June 24, 2003 press conference and this article about a private meeting with faculty in 2003). It is obvious that Paige Patterson's narrow view of women led him to force Dr. Klouda out of her position as professor of Hebrew. Since my post went public, several people have emailed me saying that there is at least one other female on SWBTS faculty who has been forced out due to gender, but unfortunately, I do not have enough information to verify if that is the case or not. Nevertheless, Southern Baptists need to realize that just ONE unjust forced removal of an SBC employee based upon gender is ONE too many. If we don't correct the problem, the courts may correct it for us. The plea of immunity may not hold water when the forced removal based on gender is an action that is CONTRARY to the position of our convention's offical statement of doctrine.
I have said over and over for the past year that the very serious problem in the SBC is the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation by demanding conformity on very rigid doctrinal interpretations of Scripture. In other words, there are a handful of influential people in the SBC who are seeking to impose their doctrinal interpretations on the entire convention -- interpretations that go FAR beyond our BFM 2000. If we do not speak up and speak out, regarding various interpretations with which we disagree, including this view that a women cannot teach a man, then we might just find those narrow views becoming convention policy post de facto (after the act) -- after several women have been hurt by our leaders' actions.
In Dr. Klouda's case, it is possible that SWBTS trustees were never informed that Dr. Klouda was being forced out because she was a women. It is feasible that Dr. Klouda never said anything about her gender discrimination out of fear of not being able to obtain good references for future employment. The SWBTS trustees will need to answer what they did know, and what they did not know, about the circumstances related to the quiet removal of Dr. Klouda because of gender. However, it is a matter of public record that SWBTS trustees in 2002 had absolutely no problem with a woman teaching Hebrew to men or teaching men how to properly exegete the Bible (more than half the Bible is written in Hebrew). For a very successful and highly acclaimed professor to be forced out by the President because she is a woman, possibly puts SWBTS in serious legal jeopardy, not to mention accreditaion problems and the angst in the hearts of a majority of Southern Baptists who always demand that we treat our convention empoloyees in a moral, ethical and Christian manner.
The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message
The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 does not forbid a woman from 'preaching,' 'teaching,' or 'proclaiming' the gospel of Jesus Christ to men. Dr. Bill Merrill and Suzie Hawkins, two of the most conservative Southern Baptists I have ever known, have spoken publicly and on the record regarding this specific issue. Bill is the former VP of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee and Suzie Hawkins is the wife of O.S. Hawkins, President of the Annuity Board of the SBC. Suzie happened to be a member of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Committee. The following is taken directly from a Baptist Press news article dated June 7, 2001 where both Bill and Suzie respond to an interview with Ann Graham Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham, and an alleged misunderstanding by the CBS interviewer regarding what the BFM 2000 has to say about women. The interview in question was from a broadcast on CBS Television News Program '60 Minutes.' ---
Susie Hawkins of Dallas, a member of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee, shares Lotz's desire to see women empowered for Christian service. But Hawkins suspects the characterization that there can be no women preachers in the SBC as a mistatement of the BFM 2000 (My editorial comment: Suzie uses the word "preachers" intentially instead of "pastors." 'Preach' is Gk. kerusso which means to 'proclaim' - as a rooster proclaims the rising of the sun --- preachers proclaim the risen SON). Again, to say there can be no woman preachers in the SBC is a misstatement of the SBC's doctrinal statement. Instead, she said, Article 6 of the BFM, dealing with the Church, states that "the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
Hawkins added, "Nowhere does it say that women can't proclaim the gospel. In fact, it is in this article that women are affirmed in the statement as being 'gifted for service.'" Hawkins noted that Lotz "never pressed the issue of women pastoring" in the 60 Minutes interview, but related the example of Mary Magdalene bringing the message of Christ to others.
Her suspicion seems to be confirmed in an interview of Lotz by Jim Jones of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram last year. Lotz stated that she agreed with conservatives who say a woman should not be a senior pastor. "I know Christians disagree on this issue, but I believe God has called me into the ministry where I am," she said.
Hawkins added, "In our own Southern Baptist tradition we have the obvious examples of missionaries Lottie Moon and Bertha Smith who were used greatly by God. But Mary Magdalene was not the spiritual authority for the disciples. She was their co-laborer, their partner in spreading the gospel."
From other interviews, Lotz has stated that she does not see herself as assuming an authoritative role when teaching. "I feel when I stand up in a pulpit I'm not coming from a position of authority," she said in an April 5, 1999, Christianity Today article. "Everywhere I go, I'm invited; if men have invited me [to speak], I'm under the authority of that committee. But I don't accept the fact that as a woman I can't preach to or teach men. My authority is the authority of God's Word." (WB's editorial comment: This is exactly what Suzie Hawkins and the BFM 2000 Committee say the BFM 2000 means)
Hawkins also disputed the characterization of the BFM Study Committee as "an elitist group of men that issued some decree." Instead, she reminded, the committee was appointed in 1999 by then-SBC President Paige Patterson and included theologians, ministers and laymen, with two of the participants being women. "Upon the discussion of the issue of women in ministry, I am eager for others to know that the men on the committee were more than willing to hear the women's perspective." Once the revised statement was submitted to Southern Baptist messengers meeting last June in Orlando, Fla., it was approved overwhelmingly as the new doctrinal statement for the largest non-Catholic denomination.
Bill Merrell, SBC Executive Committee vice president for convention relations, agreed that the reference to the decision by messengers to last year's convention was misapplied in the case of the 60 Minutes interview. "The Southern Baptist Convention position is plainly stated in the Baptist Faith and Message that we understand the pastoral office to be reserved to men as qualified in the Scripture. To my knowledge, Anne Graham Lotz makes no claim to be a pastor. She exhorts and teaches and does so, I think, with a high degree of excellence."
(END)
Unlike some in our convention who wish to use the BFM 2000 as a 'doctrinal' club, I affirm the right for those who forbid a woman to teach or preach the Bible to disagree with the position of the BFM 2000. I will, however, seek to hold accountable those who forcibly exclude Southern Baptists from service and employment in cooperative areas of ministry in the SBC for doctrinal reasons that go beyond the BFM 2000.
We have all kinds of examples of women teaching men in Baptist history. Spurgeon learned the doctrines of grace from his family's female cook. Lady Huntington taught many Baptist men the Scriptures in her home in the 18th century. Lottie Moon led several men to faith in Christ in China and discipled them quite vigorously. Mrs. Criswell taught men the Bible in the auditorium of FBC for years. LIFEWAY clears $750,000 every time Beth Moore holds a Bible conference in a major city, and not everyone present is of the female persuasion. Where would we be without our own mothers? I could go on, and on, and on. Some have countered these examples with a notion that a woman can teach the Bible to a 'boy' until he reaches the age of twelve, as one commentor on my blog proposed, but that absurdity reminds me more of the Pharisees of Jesus day, and many radical fundamentalists in the Middle East in our own day, than the Southern Baptists I have known and loved for the past 45 years.
Let's get it straight. Women can teach and preach the Bible. They have. They will. They shall continue. The BFM 2000 affirms this. So does the Bible.
The Holy Bible Clearly Affirms Women Teaching Men
What is really odd to me is the fact that all the passages in the New Testament which speak of women prophesying (I Corinthians 11:5), participating in the gifts on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), being equal to men (Galatians 3:28), and multiple other texts, too numerous to mention here, are all ignored to jump to I Timothy 2:12 and Paul's statement to Timothy "I suffer not a woman to teach nor usurp authority over a man."
There are many ways to interpret this verse. The BFM 2000 Committee applies this verse, and others, to a prohibition of women serving in the office of pastor. Let me be clear, again,that this post is not an attempt to oppose the prohibition of women pastors. As stated, there are other texts that deal with that particular subject. Dr. Klouda did not desire to be a pastor. Dr. Klouda was not ordained to the ministry. Dr. Klouda AFFIRMED THE BFM 2000.
She was removed as a professor because a very narrow interpretation of this verse that says a 'woman' is forbidden to hold a position of 'authority' over a man or 'teach' a man --- period. This verse, according to those who hold this narrow view, goes far beyond the office of pastor. WOMEN SHOULD BE MOTHERS AND GRANDMOTHERS - and they should not hold a position of authority over a man, whether it be a professor, teacher, police officer, president, etc . . . and for heaven's sake, they should NEVER teach the BIBLE to a man. I wish to show this interpreation cannot be upheld by a proper exegesis of the text.
I believe every word of the Bible. I am an inerrantist. I believe every statement of I Timothy 2. But my interpretation of I Timothy 2 is consistent with the rest of the Bible and exalts women to their proper New Covenant position. The following is an exegesis of I Timothy 2 that has been graciously provided by evangelical conservative Pastor Dave Johnson and his fellow elders at The Church of the Open Door. This church, a large, conservative evangelical fellowship of believers in Minneapolis, Minnesota has reached thousands of people for Christ. I believe the following will be a help to all us Southern Baptist pastors who are trying to resist this very narrow view of women not that is creeping into the SBC, allegedly based upon I Timothy 2.
Again, this exegesis is to deal exclusively with women’s roles as they relate to I Timothy 2:9-15. Again, there is NO attempt in this post to justify women pastors. I am showing that the the narrow interpretation of I Timothy 2 which leads some to remove women as professors of Hebrew and theology because they 'teach men' the Bible cannot be justified from I Timothy 2. The first portion deals with the exegetical approach. The next section deals with the actual exegesis of I Timothy 2, and the last section provides conclusions.
Key Principles of Accurate and Effective Exegesis
1. Grammatical Integrity
This involves the use of original languages. We need to know what is really being said.
2. Historical Integrity
An understanding of the historic and cultural events that surround Apostolic letters gives insight into why certain things are being taught and exhorted. Failing to work in this arena results in incorrect or shallow application.
3. Contextual Integrity
Through the verse by verse study we do every week, we have comet o appreciate the importance of staying with the context. It helps avoid ‘eisegesis’, i.e. Philippians 4:13.
4. Distinguish Between Timeless Truth and Temporary Regulation
Timeless truth = love God/Ten Commandments/ Salvation by Grace/
Temporary Regulation = Deuteronomy 23:12-13/ Acts 15:8-11, 19-21
Exegesis of I Timothy 2:9-15
It is obvious that at first glance this passage creates some serious problems, not only as it relates to women in ministry, but also to women in general.
Verse 12
This verse seems to cement forever the role of women in the church as that of silent, behind the scenes support. Is that what Paul meant with these words?
When Paul came to Ephesus with the gospel originally, the Power of God rocked that city. Literally thousands were saved and it even effected the economy (Acts 19:17-29). You can be sure that among those saved were temple priestess prostitutes, priests, and leaders of false religions. Under Paul’s leadership, teaching was solid, and lifestyles were changed. Under Timothy’s leadership false teaching and sloppy living were eroding the work of God in the church.
Side Note #1
Historically, one of the greatest enemies to pure biblical doctrine is a phenomenon called syncretism. This is the blending of Christian doctrines with pagan doctrines so they coexist. We saw this illustrated clearly when we went through I Corinthians. It was also happening in Ephesus. Josephus records that Clement of Alexandria complained in his Memoirs that Christian groups had turned their communion services into drunken orgies. This was clear syncretism. Throughout the Greco-Roman world there were various groups who called themselves Christians that combined worship, teaching, and sexual immorality. This syncretism was part of what Timothy faced.
Side Note #2
Because I Timothy is a personal letter, some of these problems are not directly spelled out in the text. The reason for that is because both Paul and Timothy had common knowledge of the situation at Ephesus. In fact, Paul is most likely responding point by point to the issues Timothy raised to Paul in a previous letter. This again illustrates why history and context are so vital to accurate application.
Timeless Truth of Temporary Regulation
If Paul’s prohibition of women to teach or exercise authority is a timeless truth, there is a problem with other areas of scripture in which women are involved in ministry activity, and with Paul’s experience. Even the Ephesian church had been established in part by the skillful teaching of a Godly woman named Priscilla. She and her husband Aquila taught Apollos when he first came to Ephesus with an inadequate knowledge of the Gospel (Acts 18:18-28). Timothy knew all about Priscilla! Do you think Paul would consider a ban on women teaching a timeless truth that reflected the Divine order of things? I Don’t!
Grammatical Integrity
A closer look at the Greek word for authority (authenten) is helpful. This is a rare Greek verb that appears no where else in the New Testament and only on rare occasions to Greek literature. The usage in classical Greek is one of the only resources to shed light on the meaning of this word. The most basic rendering translates: ‘to thrust oneself’. It almost always carries, however, vulgar connotations of a sexual nature. Some evidence indicates that authenten involves a soliciting of sexual liaisons. St. John Chrysostem (400 A.D.) in his commentary on I Timothy, translated authenten as ‘sexual license’. In lengthy description of various tribal practices, the Byzantine Historiographer Michael Glycas uses authenten to describe women ‘who make sexual advances to men and fornicate as much as they please’.
Add the above information to what we know historically and culturally about Ephesus. It’s a center for pagan cults with immoral practices Syncretism was clearly at work and manifesting itself through false teaching. Paul had already warned the women who were not dressing modestly – literally wearing the garb of temple prostitutes (braided hair), but now he prohibited them from teaching or using sexual manipulation to gain influence in the church (as was the common temple practice). Instead, these women are to quietly learn correct doctrine and change their lifestyles.
As we come to verses 13-14 it appears to get stickier because Paul is apparently appealing to creation itself to explain why women can’t teach but must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
More History
Related to the various cults and misguided Christian groups we’ve already discussed was the most powerful movement called Gnosticism. Among the many heresies was teaching that proposed women possessed superior intellectual and spiritual knowledge and in fact had priority in creation. They proposed further, that Eve was born before Adam and had a special knowledge that Adam did not have. These heresies were rampant in the early church era, but especially in places like cult centered Ephesus. An understanding and awareness of the active heresies help us unlock the meanings of these verses.
A Paraphrase
Women, you will not be allowed to sexually manipulate men to gain power and authority in church, the way you used to do it in the pagan temple. In fact, I do not allow you to teach at all. Instead, you need to quietly sit and receive instruction with entire submission! And while we’re on this thing, why don’t you wear decent clothes? You look like whores! Don’t try to blend pagan teaching with Christian doctrine. Eve wasn’t created first – Adam was! And Eve didn’t have any special knowledge hidden to Adam. In fact, she was the one who was first deceived. If she had so much special insight, why was she deceived at all?
Verse 15
This verse seems to indicate that women are saved or preserved by childbearing. What does this mean? Is it true? Really? How many children would be enough to preserve a woman? What about single women? Infertile women? Infertile husbands? Maybe something else is going on historically or culturally in Ephesus that will help make sense of this.
Applying the Principles
Contextual Integrity
The context of this epistle reveals that it was a personal letter from Paul to his good friend Timothy, who was the Pastor at the church in Ephesus. It is clear that Timothy was struggling in his ministry for a number of reasons. One reason is that he was a bit timid and easily intimidated. The founder of the church was Paul, and the sheer force of his bold and confrontive style had kept the wolves at bay. Those wolves, however, were moving in on Timothy.
The most obvious expression of their presence came in the form of false teaching (Gnosticism), and syncretism of pagan religions with Christianity (1:3-10). In chapter two he begins to deal with the people who were apparently using public meetings to air disputes. From those specific problems he zeros in on some inappropriate behavior among the women.
Apparently some of the women were dressing in a manner that was indiscreet and inappropriate: indeed immodest. Some work on history will help explain this.
Historical Integrity
Ephesus was the center for a number of pagan cults and religions. The most prolific was the worship of Diana and Artemis. A significant part of worship in their temples included the involvement of temple priestess prostitutes. These women, who numbered in the thousands, were more educated than the common Greek women, more cosmopolitan, and may be compared to a high class call girl.
Marriages in those days were arranged for convenience. The result was that Greek men used their wives for producing their heirs and cooking their meals, but went elsewhere for friendship, companionship, and sex. This was a common and accepted practice; that’s just the way it was. Add to this cultural reality, a religious element. Their pagan religion taught that the highest level of communion with the gods was attained through sexual intercourse. Euphoria was a sign that you had ‘made contact’.
Verse 15 still troubles, but there are legitimate possibilities. Keeping with the context, Paul may be indicating to these women that even if they have borne illegitimate children because of their participating in cultic activities, they will still be preserved if they repent in faith, and continue in love and holiness.
If that explanation is not acceptable, then we must also reject the face value idea that proposes women are somehow saved by bearing children. It simply is not true! Thousands of redeemed women have never had children! Sometimes it’s because they’re single, sometimes it’s a physical problem, sometimes it’s because of their devotion to ministry.
Michelson: “This verse seems to point to women’s role in bringing
into the world a godly posterity.”
I Corinthians 11:12 may also shed some light.
Conclusions
In my opinion, this passage is not a timeless truth that forever prohibits women from positions of authority and teaching. There are however, timeless truths in this text. Don’t let people without understanding teach. They should receive instruction in all submissiveness before they give instruction. Morality and purity in living is also a timeless truth that is called for here! Another timeless truth is that you confront false teaching out loud! Don’t try to coexist!
Helpful Resources for Study
Daughters of the Church; Walter Liefeld / Ruth A. Tucker
No Time for Silence; Janette Hassey
Women at the Crossroads; Karl Tojeson Malcolm
Reformed Journal; Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb;
Richard & Catherine Kroeger
Reformed Journal: May Women Teach?; Richard & Catherine Kroeger
Women in the Church; Berkeley Michelson
My Personal Conclusions About Dr. Klouda and the SBC
There are two issues surrounding Dr. Klouda. There is the issue of broken integrity when it comes to things said, and actions done, toward Dr. Sheri Klouda by the administration of SWBTS.
But then, to me, there is even a deeper issue that faces us as a convention. We have already placed a prohibition regarding women pastors in the BFM 2000. Are there those who are now desiring that we place in our BFM 2000 a statement that no woman shall teach a man the Bible?
If so, we will be violating our own history, the examples of women teaching men in Scipture itself, and the principles of the New Covenant gospel. It's time we as Southern Baptist stopped the creeping demand for conformity in the acceptance of a very narrow and strict interpretation of texts like I Timothy 2.
It is not too late to do something.
And we owe it to the future women of the Southern Baptist Convention -- not to mention Dr. Sheri Klouda.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
posted by Wade Burleson | Friday, January 19, 2007
260 Comments:
Excellent. May God be glorified. Not man, not an institution, not a doctrine, not an individual, but to God alone be the glory.
I have written an email. I have been praying. I have pointed other bloggers to your site. Can you or others tell all readers what more can be done to help, if anything? I frankly am shocked that this hasn't been front page news.
Bryan,
It will be. Blogs are a much quicker medium than traditional papers. Give it a few weeks and I think you will see some substantive steps in the right direction.
Wade,
Excellent post. You've really got me thinking here. I must say that I've been in the camp that did not feel that women should be teaching men, based on the 2 Tim. passage. But, I think that prohibition has more to do with authority than it does with proclamation. I've seen the other passages where women clearly were teaching men (Priscilla and her husband, Aquilla, with Apollos), and it has caused me to look at that stance in a different way. I've basically come to the perspective, that women can share with men the truths of Scripture and the insight God has given them, but they are not to be an authority over them. It sounds nuanced, perhaps to the extreme, but it seems to fit the full scope of passages. In other words, if it's being done wrongly, you kind of know it when you see it. If you don't try and balance this teaching, you end up with a situation where women cannot even share testimonies in church. Not good.
On another note, isn't the BF&M2000 an authority over us, in a sense, at least? If that is so, then doesn't the presence of Susie Hawkins and another woman on the revision committee, in essence, place them in an authoritative role to teach the men of the SBC through the words of the BF&M? If they have input into the formation of our confession of faith, then they are acting with authority, even as they advise. Every pastor knows that when he advises a committee or ministry team, he acts with authority. The same would be the case here.
It just seems like a major contradiction.
There is a reason that Dr Patterson has been president of the SBC as well as president of 2 seminaries.....many people trust him(including myself). Is he sinless? I am sure that he would be the first to say that he is not. Would he choose to rephrase some of the comments that he has made over the years? I am pretty sure he would. Does he love God? I have no doubt. Has he sacrificed himself over the years in his pursuit to help the cause of Christ within the SBC? absolutely. Many know him better than myself although I have taken a couple of courses from him during my time at SEBTS.
Does Dr Patterson have the right as President to dismiss faculty that disagree with theological convictions that he has which he deems as esssential? I believe that he does. Will everyone agree with his specific convictions? Absolutely not. He was asked to be President because people trust him and are confident in his ability as administrator/theologian/man of God. Not knowing all the details of this situation, I prefer to give him the benfit of the doubt. It seems from reading this blog that I am in the minority in this position.
Those who are ready to call for Dr Patterson's ouster....remember...you at best know only 1/2 of the story, probably less. There could have been other factors as well, but we can only speculate. I am not prepared to base such a harsh conviction of a man of God on such scant evidence as has been presented. If having Dr klouda as a Hebrew teacher violates Dr Patterson's Biblical convictions, I would be far more upset that he would choose to be politically correct in folowing other's opinions/agendas rather than personally following the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Just because we are Southern Baptists(whether pastors, SS teachers, plain old members), we do not have the right to "micro-manage" every decision made by a seminary President. As has been stated earlier, this is the purpose of the trustee system, and if that fails, the convention at large. This is not being done in this case.
Trustees have a role within the SBC and if SBC members believe this to be a matter which should be addressed by SWBTS trustees, then by all means contact them. Otherwise, what is going on here in blog world is a farce of a trial in which opinions and speculations are viewed as fact, and the guilt of Dr Patterson seems to be a presupposition....Kevin Apperson
Wade,
"Let's get it straight. Women can teach and preach the Bible. They have. They will. They shall continue. The BFM 2000 affirms this. So does the Bible." -Amen
Thank you for the exegesis of the text. I appreciate your ministry to the common soldiers on this battlefield.
I would not be who I am in Christ if it had not been for a praying mother. I would not be who I am in Christ if it had not been for a dynamic Sunday school teacher in college - a Godly woman whom I will always esteem greatly. I would not be who I am in Christ if not for my beautiful wife. There a several other women that I owe a spiritual debt.
I know that these examples don't directly correlate with seminarian political life. I do think that these influences cannot be ignored as a basis for the importance and value that women have in the body of Christ. I think that if even the most pious of Baptist males were to be honest, they would admit that they were significantly and postively influenced by a Godly woman at sometime in their walk.
In this context, what in the world is wrong with a woman of God teaching Greek to men (and women by the way?)Nothing. Period.
Bill Scott
Alan,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate your humility.
Kevin Apperson,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I, too, could say many good things about Dr. Patterson.
I do believe, however, there are integrity and legal issues in the Klouda case. We'll see. My prayer is that we can address them before others force us to do so.
Bill Scott.
Amen to you too!
wb
Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary over many a quaint a curious volume of doctrine spoiled rotten. While I nodded, nearly napping there came a tapping, as of someone gently rapping, rapping on my office door. "Tis my wife," I shuttered as she uttered...quothe the blog after midnight nevermore... :-)
Kevin,
Well said! This should be a trustee issue. If it gets to the paper it will be by some bloggers who do not have all the info and that will be sad for the SBC.
Not hiding, just understanding intent of media. We must not be foolish. It does not honor Christ at all.
Praying for God to get hold of us bloggers!
Looks like I missed the cut on the last post, so I will post here:
1 Corinthians 6:1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? ... 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren.
What is glaringly apparent is the ignoring of the commands of Scripture by many, especially by you, Wade. I sincerely appreciate your zeal, as did Paul that of the Jews. You are a gifted rhetorician, as demonstrated by your emotive pleas to action, and your professed love and devotion to a man on the one hand while you smite him with the other. However, I must take issue with the obvious fact that only one side of the story is being heard. If, perhaps, you as a pastor were confronted by several men who claim to have witness to unethical behavior on your part, would you expect the men to take the issue before the church prior to hearing your side? Wouldn't they owe you, as a beloved Christian brother, the decency of time...at least?
But, O! How that pales in comparison to taking it before unbelievers and believers alike! In the verse above, why did Paul insist that all matters between believers be handled amongst believers? Although his foundation was the elevation of the redeemed to judge the world, his plea was for the sake of Christ's holy name. I do not believe it to be a stretch to apply this verse to the airing of the alleged sins of a brother with whom you have a grievance before unbelievers, as you have so effectively accomplished here. Why not rather be wronged? The dear professor obviously thought much more of the sovereignty of God than is even expressed to suffer your perceived wrongs and endure them in trust, while ignoring what our country deems right for an employer, or even wanting the story run before unbelievers in the blogoshpere. And to bring up federal law? Why not throw in the fact that we won't hire in the SBC a gifted, accomplished theologian who is homosexual, or who's religious belief denies the errancy of paedobaptism?
Who can deny that this public forum constitutes gossip? More importantly, how can you justify airing a grievance between believers to the whole world (with Scripture)? It is also interesting you claim "And believe I can support my view with the clear teaching of Scripture" but have yet to do so- though you offered another's "exegesis." So what are we left with? A seminary president who so lives out his theology that it actually has real consequences in his daily life and for others around him. A trustee who articulates a position incorporating federal law that is against the theology of the seminary president...and is against other trustees...and says the SBC will have its sky fall in if we don't do things the properly "evangelical" way... Can God not overcome? In God's providence, I will submit to any biblical leadership by God's decree and the Holy Spirit's illumination that I may be placed under in the future. Few will deny change is needed in the SBC. But I do not foresee under God's glorious heavens ever supporting a movement like this to control the direction of the SBC, especially with the negativity emanating from all things SBC at this place. Is it really that horrible?
Lord help us to seek the face of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and for unbelieving eyes not to set their gaze upon the chronicles of the grievances of the SBC.
Tim, I agree that we all must fix our eyes on Jesus and weigh all our conduct and words with a desire to glorify God and not fall short of His glory. But, I am not sure I agree with the intent of your comment.
I'm sure I'll be seen as a Wade worshiper or whatever the current term is for saying this, but Wade's posts have stated facts and done so in an objective way, without rancor, bitterness, or pride. I haven't done it often, but I have asked Wade about his words on occasion, both publically and privately, when I was concerned about the perception that might be taken of them. In this case, with this post and his comments, I'm not sure how any of it defeats the glory of Christ, although I understand that some may disagree and could potentially find something to point at somewhere upon which to base such an opinion.
Regardless, however, that cannot be said by anyone about the actions taken by Dr. Patterson with regard to Dr. Klouda, and that is the point of all of this. The shameful and harmful acts have been done, not by bloggers, but by the decision to terminate someone upon an illegal (or at least unethical) and unbiblical basis.
Your argument would also justify the Catholic churches holding in information related to child molestation, Colin. That's worked well.
Anonymous,
Nice try. I used Paul's argument, and his addresses grievances between believers. The sin you speak of would properly be put in the category of church discipline, and the law must be notified. Your name works well.
Matthew 10:
26"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.."
This certainly applies in this tragic situation.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Does Dr Patterson have the right as President to dismiss faculty that disagree with theological convictions that he has which he deems as esssential? I believe that he does."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
president #1
"my theological conviction tells me women can teach men hebrew and bible. ladies your in."
president #2
"my theological conviction tells me women can't teach men hebrew and bible. ladies your out.
president #3
"my theological conviction tells me women can teach men hebrew and bible. ladies your in."
where is the institutional consistency and INTEGRITY?
my answer:
first it's in the hands of the trustees. and we know what their position is...they voted FOR her. if they don't make a response that will right this wrong...then...
...it's in the hands of the convention messengers and i would hope they would make it right.
Lord, bless every Christian woman who continues to cooperate in missions and ministry with the sbc in spite of offensive and discouraging events as these. And bless those who are now unable because of these events.
Kevin Apperson, my former classmate:
I don't think I've seen you since this picture was taken a few years ago.
Now I know you are a fair and careful Christian servant, and I know that you believe fully that Proverbs 18:17 is an inerrant text.
But Kevin you were trained in Baptist polity better than this. Patterson does not have the prerogative to terminate an elected faculty member at Southwestern. This is true for several reasons:
1. The seminary bylaws provide that only the trustees can terminate an elected faculty member, tenured or non-tenured.
2. The seminary bylaws stipulate that the president is to execute the privileges of his office "in accord with and not contrary to" the BFM2000.
3. The BFM2000 speaks clearly about the office of "senior pastor," but it says nothing about the place of a seminary professor.
4. Sheri Klouda was anatomically female when she was hired. Presumably, she was anatomically female when she was asked to leave. Nothing changed about her. The only thing that changed is the administration.
5. Which is why bylaws and trustees govern an institution, not presidents and their theological "preferences." Presidents can change overnight (ask Ken Hemphill and Russell Dilday), but an institution must have a continuity of faculty to execute the charge assigned to it by Southern Baptists.
6. Accreditation guidelines from every major accrediting agency stipulate certain protections for elected faculty. Paige Patterson has exposed SWBTS to unnecessary accreditation review, which is unwise given SWBTS's choppy accreditation history in the last fifteen years.
7. Those of us who are calling for his ouster -- and so far I think I'm the only one who's scratching that surface -- are hardly in the dark about things. In fact, you yourself know more about what's happening at SWBTS than you did yesterday just because you read Wade's blog. If he hadn't told you what he did, you'd be less than half informed. In fact, you'd be uninformed. Surely you don't think Wade has done you a disservice by alerting you to a potential injustice to a fellow Southern Baptist?
8. There is a reason that Sheri Klouda was hired to teach two Baptist seminaries, and that she received presidential scholarships from Criswell and SWBTS. There is a reason that the trustees conferred upon her the status of tenure-track faculty. They trust her. If the trustees who are alone charged with the responsibility of electing faculty trust her to teach biblical languages, is it the province of Paige Patterson to supercede their trust?
In fact, Southern Baptists trust their trustees to choose SWBTS faculty more than they do Paige Patterson. That's why they're called "trustees," don't you imagine?
9. Were you aware that the "trustees" limited the appointment powers of Ken Hemphill when he was president because they didn't "trust" the president to make long-term appointments of adjunctive faculty members without their oversight? Or perhaps you didn't want to know that half of the story, either?
10. Do you think the faculty at SWBTS, who conferred upon Sheri Klouda a PhD in Old Testament, believed that she was qualified to teach "in accord with and not contrary to" the BFM2000? What about the trustees who authorized her degree? What about the administration who signed her diploma? Is Paige Patterson the only person whose judgment is to be trusted above all of theirs?
Finally, Kevin, I assure you that I do not engage in speculative theology or politics. Disagree with my opinions, which I offer as opinions. Offer your own to balance mine. But do not assert that I am engaging in a "farce of a trial" built on "presuppositions." Facts, my good man, are much better allies in a conflict of this nature than are opinions.
Your opinion is that Paige Patterson should be trusted. Mine is that he should be awarded his watch and provided a UHAUL.
But neither of those opinions has anything to do with the FACT that a woman is now without a job, facing bankruptcy, and dealing with a termination that even her colleagues -- several with whom I have spoken this very day -- believe her departure from SWBTS to be tragically handled by the administration of Paige Patterson, Craig Blaising, and David Allen.
Oh, did you know that some trustees were adamantly opposed to hiring Sheri Klouda? Did you know that David Allen was the trustee who forced her election through and cajoled his fellow trustees to go along without opposition? Did you know that he was soon therafter elected as trustee chairman? Did you know that he was hired at SWBTS as theology dean when his term on the board of trustees expired? Did you know that he served as Sheri Klouda's supervisor in that capacity? Did you know two years after he advocated her election under the administration of Ken Hemphill that he advocated her dismissal under Paige Patterson?
These are not opinions, Kevin. These are facts confirmed by numerous sources including current and former trustees, as well as current and former faculty members.
Half truths, Kevin?
How about total fraud.
BSC
Colin,
You state, “Looks like I missed the cut on the last post, so I will post here:”
What do you mean by “cut”? At the time of your writing here, you made the last comment on yesterday’s post. The post has not gone away or closed off. There may be a hundred more comments made on it.
So what’s the deal? Why didn’t you want your comment here to be the 289 comment on yesterday’s post? Were you afraid people had become tired of reading and would not take much interest in what you had to say?
In my opinion, your comment is on topic on this post. You didn’t need an explanation. In giving an explanation in a false way shows a lack of integrity on your part. Especially when your comment is on Christian ethics or the lack of it.
You complain that only one side of the story is heard. Why is that? In my opinion, if Patterson had any good reasons he could have conveyed them to Wade by phone or email when he was asked.
It’s not even against the law for Patterson to make comments on Wade’s post. He may be reading every comment on it. In that case, as a student of SWBTS, you may be making brownie points. (Now that’s not nice to say, but you will admit what you wrote on your blog got you in trouble—so much so, you were removed from a class.)
I predict that Patterson will not defend himself of his treatment of Sheri Klouda. Why? Because every time he’s in the wrong, he lets silence answer until things blow over. I won’t rehash history.
As Baptist, we wouldn’t want to prosecute SWBTS for breaking federal law; would we? That would make Baptists look bad. Alas, we’re in the same sinful boat as Catholics.
Colin, your problem is you want to kill the messenger.
Rex Ray
TRIBUTE TO A BIBLE TEACHING WOMAN:
When I was saved, I knew nothing of the Bible. I thought Revelation was a brand of shotguns sold at Western Auto Stores.
In the providence and grace of God I came to love a devout Christian girl and married her. She was my first Bible teacher. She also helped in teaching our sons the Bible, along with all the other boys that came through our life and home.
All of our "boys" are now "men." (according to the cb definition of men:-)
We now have two more boys in our home. This time, for the first time, along with two little girls.
My wife, again is teaching ALL the children the same Bible. I am teaching the boys the Bible also. These "boys" will become "men" (by the same cb definition) before they leave our home, by the grace of God. My wife will continue to help teach them the Bible all the time they are in our home.
It is true that my "definition" of men is no longer in line with political correctness. I loose no sleep over that. I would loose sleep if my wife did not help teach my boys the Bible. I would have lost my "way" if she had not taught me the Bible in the beginning.
I owe much to a Bible teaching girl that became a Bible teaching woman and my Bible teaching wife and Bible teaching Mother to our boys.
My boys are all men now.
(except for the two new "boys" that are down stairs lifting weights right now at 5:00a.m.:-)so they can become men according to the cb definition:-) (Don't you just love it.)
If anyone does not believe they are men, go "grab hold" of one of'em. After they are "finished" with you they will be glad to teach you from the same Bible their Momma taught them from as they were boys becoming men and afterwards.
MORAL OF THE STORY: I thank God for a Bible teaching woman in my life and as I have looked around at the offspring of some in SBC life......"WELL".... I think it may have helped if she had been able to teach some of those "boys" a little bit of Bible also:-)
cb
Facts are critical when making serious charges, such as those flying against Dr. Patterson. Most people here are buying Wade's assertion that this woman was terminated because she is a woman. But, what are the facts supporting that assertion? Wade's case hinges on the basis that somebody apparently told her that she was being terminated because she is a woman, but we never hear who that person was. Was it Dr. Patterson? Was it someone with a grudge against Dr. Patterson? Was it the mailman? We simply do not know. Therefore, we do not know whether the statement was material to the decision not to retain her.
Some apparently want to believe the worst and are eager to attack Dr. Patterson. But, there is no solid factual basis to do so here. Surely we cannot simply accept Wade's assertion that he has ample evidence to support his charge. If he has evidence he should roll it out.
I do not know why this apparently very highly qualified woman is no longer teacing at the seminary. But, let me suggest that those ranting and raving on this blog do not know all the facts, either. It is highly irresponsible to criticize Dr. Patterson so severely without having all the facts.
Some may say, Well, Dr. Patterson should come on this forum to defend his actions. Do we really believe that he has nothing better to do- as is apparently the case with some- than to follow blogs all day? The blog world is simply not the place for an investigation. We elect trustees to handle matters such as this.
Michael Studdard
Wade,
this is just another example of why I have, since I started became a "featured guest commenter” on this blog, banged the drum that we the convention ought to pass a resolution of some kind stating that no seminary or agency of the SBC can tolerate any doctrinal position LESS than the BF&M2000 and no seminary or agency can discriminate, doctrinally, BEYOND the BF&M2000.
That needs to be a "rule" that the Convention resolves to place up her seminaries and agencies ONLY regarding doctrinal tolerance and discrimination. The Convention ought to set our doctrinal parameters...let the Convention make those parameters as WIDE or as NARROW as WE feel led.
I believe this needs to happen Wade. This story you are breaking is another example why. The BF&M2000 must be a TOOL and not just a worthless guideline.
Thanks Wade...you troubler of Israel!
Wade,
Jim Hamilton wrote a good paper on this subject with which you may not agree with 100%, but it is well done nonetheless.
http://www.swbts.edu/faculty/jhamilton/documents/4-12-05.pdf
He also talks about this issue on his blog. http://jimhamilton.wordpress.com/
Thanks,
Mark
Michael Studdard
Reading your comment and numerous others for this post and the prior post make it so easy to see why many people were willing to drink the koolaid in Guyana.
While working at SEBTS, I was told by various people on many different occasions that Dr. Patterson would never hire a woman as a director of a department. I had two different co-workers who applied for positions of department directors and I know for a fact that at least one of them was more qualified than the male candidate but was not considered because she was female.
Since neither position had anything whatsoever to do with teaching the Bible the only thing that can be deducted is that they may have been in a position to assign work or "instruct" a male student as to how to complete a task or "count money."
Karen Scott
Michael Studdard,
It seems that thoughts come to you in such a manner that you choose to post them, as is, on different bog sites. So, since this is the same comment you pasted on my friend's Marty Duren's blog, I'll copy and paste my same answerto you over there. :)
I find it humorous that you are doing to me precisely that which you accuse me of doing to Dr. Patterson. Your righteous indignation loses a little of her punch.
I would be rather stupid to publicly post what I have written if I did not know my facts to be truthful, confirmed by multiple sources.
Marty says I am stupid, but my wife says I’m brilliant.
I believe my wife :)
Colin,
Frankly, I am tired of your argument.
It's old. It's weak. It's ineffective.
I've done everything according to Scripture. I affirm my brothers in Christ.
Only people exposed, and ashamed, launch an attack against the messenger with words like 'gossip' and 'slander.' Let's see, I'll give you sixty days before you retract it. I don't think you'll beat the record of thirty.
Southern Baptists better get used to greater accountability in areas of moral and ethical breaches.
Blessings,
Wade
Tim,
Integrity is a big issue, is it not? Keeping one's word is important
?
Colin, your comments typify what is wrong in the SBC. Hide the problem, do not deal with it, trust that every decision made by a leader in the denomination is good and just. After all, if the decision was made, there must have been a good reason for it.
As for your contention that the blog world is a public forum, not fit for discussion among believers, I would respectfully say that you are wrong. When you hold a business meeting at your church, are your words not open for all to hear? Do you speak into a vacuum? No you don't. I would assume that believers and unbelievers alike are welcome into most churches, where positions are argued and defended all the time. The blog world is just a more modern way of dealing with these issues. And more effective as well. So don't jump on Wade's case because he is airing these grievences on the internet. If unbelievers read it, all the better. That means that the leadership better clean up its act, because the world is indeed watching. When SWBTS fired Russell Dilday, I happened to be in Dallas. The Dallas Morning News covered the story, and I remember a relative of mine expressed great disdain at the way Christians treated their own. SBC leadership made a poor decision, handled it in an unchristian manner, and word got out. When it got out, it pushed a person further from the Gospel. The same thing has occurred with this professor, and rather than sweep it under the rug, hoping that no lost people will find out, it needs to be dealt with. This is a good way to deal with it, maybe the best way.
Wade-
You say, "I would be rather stupid to publicly post what I have written if I did not know my facts to be truthful, confirmed by multiple sources."
You make my point for me. You claim to have facts to support your assertions and you expect others simply to accept blindly your word for it. But the fact is that the only fact you have given in support of your assertion that this fine woman was terminated because of her sex is a comment to that effect from some unnamed person.The sad thing is that many people apparently take your word without requiring you to prove what you say.
One gets the feeling that you could say that you flew to the moon this morning and many on here would line up to ask you for some cheese.
Michael Studdard
Brother Wade,
Allow me to say that your rules for interpreting a text are right on. You have clearly established the rules of sound exegesis. However, your application brings them more into "I"xegesis.:>)
I say that because according to my understanding of that verb "authority", which appears to be where the doctrinal hat is hung, the reason for it rarity is that it occurs in late ecclesiastical writers. It is found in the writings of Herodotus, Euripides, and Thucydides. Also it is found in 3 Maccabees (sp) 2:29. The phrase that surrounds the verb is better translated "to exercise dominion over".
Also, Moulton and Milligan's Vocabular clears up the use of this verb. It comes from "autodikeo" which was the literary for playing the master. This verb derives from two different words Which mean "a self-doer, master, autocrat."
You have done well in your studies to teach yourself the languages and I commend you on your discipline. I believe your application fails to translate accurately what the text is saying. Of course I will confess that I am not as disciplined as you in learning the original language and have to rely more on Marvin R. Vincent and A.T. Robertson
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
Wade,
"Narrow"--To limit in size or scope...to restrict."
"Boundary"--"Something that marks or fixes a limit."
If we are seeing a narrowing of the boundaries of Southern Baptist life in this situation, a woman trained and hired by a Seminary, fired because of her gender, where the guidelines are the BF@M, which mentions the role of a woman in pastoring only, then it began at another agency where additional requirements beyond the BF@M were introduced, namely, a restriction of employment because of a belief in a private prayer language and baptism connected to the doctrine of eternal security.
Where one is paid a salary by the Convention, one may make a somewhat valid argument that the guiding document adopted by the Convention, the BF@M, is to give guidance for employment. But to arbitrarily go beyond that document because of a personal theological belief of the one who heads that SB agency or institution or even at the desire of the Board of Trustees, seems to me to be a problem that needs to be addressed.
If the BF@M in Confessional form is our agreed, albeit non-inerrant, statement of what generally constitutes a Southern Baptist, it must either be a guide to employees or not be a guide. But to say they MUST sign and support it and then narrow [see definition above] the boundaries [see definition above] which THEY were required to sign is patently unfair and perhaps unchristian.
[There are additional problems of ethics, maybe Federal law, and promises made/broken that are to be addressed in the Seminary situation, but, I'm looking at the broader picture of Southern Baptist life. If Federal law IS applicable we will need to change the way we do things, or, if scripture genuinely tells us to do something Federal law forbids, than we will be willing to obey scripture and take the consequences without rancor. But let's deal with our problems because they are problems NOT when some outside source requires it.]
Thanks for calling us to biblical principles. I know factually as one of your accountability group, you followed all pertinent biblical principles pryor to publishing your post.
This is neither to defend you nor to inform you, it is to say "thank you."
DAD
Michael Studdard,
Obviously, you do not know me, nor I you.
I have a track record that is easy to explore. It is people, like you and Colin, who jump to conclusions about me without 'any facts' and make statements that seek to discredit me. I'm fine with that because I have gotten used to that. :)
So, all I know to say is this: I hope you are around a few weeks from now to retract your comments.
But I doubt we will hear from you. :)
Wade
Dad, I sure must have received the big picture gene from you, because very view people are seeing the big picture here, and that is what drives me at this moment to be involved in the SBC.
It's the Sheri Klouda's of this world that give me fuel to continue the drive.
:)
Tim,
Thanks for your comment. I read Robertson too. :)
He is very good, but not infallible. Sometimes, this 19th century Greek scholar becomes influenced with his environment as were the KJV translators when they translated the same word in the Greek text differently when the context spoke of a man than when in the context it referred to a woman (i.e. 'ruler' for a man and "succouror' for a woman). :)
Could it be that the Word of God is accurate in every jot and tittle, but the interpretations of men are fallible? I think so.
That's why are fellowship and boundaries ought to be the essentails of the faith and not disputable matters.
Oh well, I do appreciate the differences of interpretation you offered. My point is simply that yours goes well beyond the official doctrinal standard of the BFM 2000.
:)
Brother Wade,
I will give you that your interpretation is just different from mine. I agree that we all look at scripture through our cultural lenses. However, to question Dr. Robertson's accuracy of translating the text, to me, is akin to questioning Jonathan Edwards understanding of John Calvin's writings. I agree that Dr. Robertson is not infallible, but the accuracy of his translation I do not think I have ever seen anyone question.
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
Paul B.,
You're right on. That comment should be a post all it's own, and is the crux of this whole thing. I wonder if that would make a good resolution at the convention this year? What do ya'll think?
Wade;
WOW !
Best post you have ever done!
The rest of the day will be spent with people spouting off with their theology, but, I get it, the big picture, the exegesis, and the need for Baptist to back off and learn to love all Christians of every name with all of our personal convictions instead of what is being done.
I apologize to Paige for the thoughts I have had about him and pray that he will also see that there is room at the seminary for all genders of professors
Wade-
I enjoyed all 67,000 words of this post.
I must point out, I didn't call you "stupid." I called you "ugly."
There is also an interesting exegesis of the verse in question here.
I fear I that am shallow. I came away from this post and comments chuckling as I envisioned Mrs. Criswell regulaly on Paige's case about this position or is it more likely that he did not share his views so easily when he was under the Chriswell thumb? He may refuse to learn anything Biblical from women but deep down in his psyche this maybe a way of getting back at two women with authority over him and I don't mean to imply that one of those was his mother.
Thanks for addressing an issue that is causing many to miss out on some very incredible gifted women that God in His great wisdom has chosen to bless our denomination.
While I do not know Dr. Klouda I was able to sit in the classes of Dr. Karen Bullock while a student at SWBTS. It was very plain to see when the current administration arrived that she would not be around for very long and that was not due to her qualifications.
Dr. Bullock was one of the most knowledgeable persons I have ever met in regards to Christian and Baptist history, but she also had a heart and love for missions. In her class you got more than history which she excelled in teaching, but you also received a daily helping of God's heart for the nations woven into the history of God's people.
It is a very sad day when people's decisions in running our institutions not only affect the lives of women and their families, but it also affects many who might have been touched by a wonderful lady whose heart and love for God reached around the world in love for the lost. I would gladly send my sons and daughter to study under such leadership and teaching, because she truly led people closer to the heart of God. I might also add that as it stands now I would not recommend my children or any others to attend the seminary where I graduated.
yall know what blogs are starting to remind me of? the coffee shops around small towns where men go and gossip and run down the pastor and/or some staff member that they dont like, or that has led the church to do something that they dont like.
it's also reminding me of the beauty parlors in small towns where women go and gossip and run down the pastor and/or some staff member that they dont like, or that has led the church to go in a direction that they dont favor.
i wonder if the Lord Jesus is pleased with all of this and how many of these blogs take that nasty turn in the road.
wade,
again most conservative, evangelical, bible scholars would completely disagree with your opinion of 1 timothy 2. it seems so clear.....
volfan007
volfan-
Name a few from the commentaries on your own library.
*in*