A Call for Intellectual Honesty and Consistency
Emily Hunter McGowan recently wrote a post over at SBCOutpost entitled Who Shall Have Authority Over a Man? In the comment section I wrote the following:
Yesterday a Texas Southern Baptist pastor challenged me regarding my comment. Pastor R.L Vaughn's tone was gracious as he wrote in his blog . . .
Vaughn continues in his post - switching to the third person . . .
Mr. Vaughn asks a great question. In fact, he goes to the very heart of the issue.
Has there ever been a time that Southern Baptists spoke forcefully, eloquently and passionately in support of the institution of slavery? Have Southern Baptists ever defended slavery from a perspective of trust in, and standing upon, the inerrant and infallible Word of God? Mr. Vaughn acts like this has never happened in the SBC. He implies that anyone who supported slavery -- just as anyone who supported "women pastors" - is doing so based upon "cultural" biases or preferences and is ignoring the clear teaching of God's Word. Pastor Vaughan acts as if any argument supporting slavery would have to be both ludicrous and incredible.
Enter Basil Manley.
This 19th century Southern Baptist pastor, President, author, and theologian preached a message at First Baptist Church, Charleston, South Carolina in April of 1837 entitled Duties of Masters and Servants. Shawn Ritenour presented a scholarly paper at the Austrian Scholars Conference at Auburn, Alabama in March, 2002. Dr. Ritenour writes of Basil Manley's message:
Allow me now to issue a call for intellectual honesty and consistency among Southern Baptists . . .
(1). Some Southern Baptists in the 1800's used the infallibility of Scripture to justify the institution of slavery and accused anyone who disagreed as liberal.
(2). Some Southern Baptists today use the infallibility of Scripture to justify prohibiting women from teaching men or holding a position of authority over men and accuse anyone who disagrees as "liberal."
Anyone see the consistency?
(1). Some Southern Baptists in the 1800's were not convinced the Scriptures supported the insitution of slavery, but personally supported slavery for personal and cultural reasons and did not harbor animosity toward those on the other side.
(2). Some Southern Baptists today are not convinced the Scripture prohibits women from teaching men or holding positions of "authority" over men, but personally support the prohibition of women pastors for personal, cultural and "confessional" (BFM 2000) reasons, but do not harbor animosity toward those on the other side.
Anyone see the consistency?
I agree with Mr. Vaughn's call for consistency.
What is needed is an intellectual honesty of where we Southern Baptists have been, where we are now, and where we may be in the future. To say we have erred does not compromise one's belief in the sufficiency and infallibility of the Word of God.
We Southern Baptists are people who believe in the inerrant Book - with a history of seemingly errant interpretations.
That is both honest and consistent. And when we have that attitude we won't be quite as smug and uncooperative as we would be without it.
In His Grace,
Wade
In our church, we have women who chair committees, serve as trustees, teach men in Sunday School classes and have had women teach from the pulpit. We do not have women "pastors" or "elders" at our church - for we have chosen to abide by the BFM 2000 confessionally - but unlike others, our church would have never chosen to make that issue a test of Southern Baptist fellowship and cooperation. Though I personally would not lead our church to hire female pastors or elders, we believe in giving freedom in this area to other churches because we see the possibility of interpretive differences regarding I Timothy 3 and we feel deeply that it is ultimately a local church decision.
I have said publicly that I would not personally lead my church to hire a female pastor, would not be a member of a church where the senior pastor was female, and I have no problem personally with the BFM 2000* on this issue. However, I am honest enough to say that my discomfort is personal and cultural — and not Biblical.
Yesterday a Texas Southern Baptist pastor challenged me regarding my comment. Pastor R.L Vaughn's tone was gracious as he wrote in his blog . . .
I certainly respect your feelings of personal and cultural discomfort. I have some things that make me personally uncomfortable as well. But, that being said, if we realize it is just that personal discomfort, don’t we have some obligation to change our comfort zone? Some have made comparisons of the female pastor issue to both slavery and segregation. What if we inserted those into the statement — 'My discomfort (with ending slavery) is personal and cultural — and not Biblical' or 'My discomfort (with integration) is personal and cultural — and not Biblical
Vaughn continues in his post - switching to the third person . . .
Burleson is representative of what some people think on the issue. Others believe that having or not having female pastors is a Biblical rather than a personal & cultural issue. In several blogs I've read online, folks have compared the female pastor issue with past issues like slavery and segregation. Wade Burleson himself made the comparison in the thread from which I am quoting. My point is that one can't have it both ways. If you want to compare keeping women from being pastors to keeping slaves, then perhaps you should react the same way to both. Wouldn't that be consistent? (emphasis mine)
Mr. Vaughn asks a great question. In fact, he goes to the very heart of the issue.
Has there ever been a time that Southern Baptists spoke forcefully, eloquently and passionately in support of the institution of slavery? Have Southern Baptists ever defended slavery from a perspective of trust in, and standing upon, the inerrant and infallible Word of God? Mr. Vaughn acts like this has never happened in the SBC. He implies that anyone who supported slavery -- just as anyone who supported "women pastors" - is doing so based upon "cultural" biases or preferences and is ignoring the clear teaching of God's Word. Pastor Vaughan acts as if any argument supporting slavery would have to be both ludicrous and incredible.
Enter Basil Manley.
This 19th century Southern Baptist pastor, President, author, and theologian preached a message at First Baptist Church, Charleston, South Carolina in April of 1837 entitled Duties of Masters and Servants. Shawn Ritenour presented a scholarly paper at the Austrian Scholars Conference at Auburn, Alabama in March, 2002. Dr. Ritenour writes of Basil Manley's message:
Manly’s arguments justifying the institution of slavery (were based) on the Scriptures.
In the sermon 'Duties of Masters and Servants' Manly first presents a Biblical justification for the existence of the institution of slavery and then exposits on the regulations God places on both masters and servants. In doing so, Manly uses as his primary text, Ephesians 6:5-9 which exhorts, “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same
shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” He additionally draws upon an impressive set of passages taken from the entire breadth of Scripture, including verses out of Genesis, Joshua, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Malachi, Matthew, Luke, I Corinthians, Galatians, I Timothy, Titus, James, I Peter, and Philemon.
In defending the institution of slavery by appealing to Scripture, Manly aligned himself with the bulk of Southern Christian thinkers. Many of the arguments put forth by Southern clergy, including Baptists, were rooted in the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture.
Allow me now to issue a call for intellectual honesty and consistency among Southern Baptists . . .
(1). Some Southern Baptists in the 1800's used the infallibility of Scripture to justify the institution of slavery and accused anyone who disagreed as liberal.
(2). Some Southern Baptists today use the infallibility of Scripture to justify prohibiting women from teaching men or holding a position of authority over men and accuse anyone who disagrees as "liberal."
Anyone see the consistency?
(1). Some Southern Baptists in the 1800's were not convinced the Scriptures supported the insitution of slavery, but personally supported slavery for personal and cultural reasons and did not harbor animosity toward those on the other side.
(2). Some Southern Baptists today are not convinced the Scripture prohibits women from teaching men or holding positions of "authority" over men, but personally support the prohibition of women pastors for personal, cultural and "confessional" (BFM 2000) reasons, but do not harbor animosity toward those on the other side.
Anyone see the consistency?
I agree with Mr. Vaughn's call for consistency.
What is needed is an intellectual honesty of where we Southern Baptists have been, where we are now, and where we may be in the future. To say we have erred does not compromise one's belief in the sufficiency and infallibility of the Word of God.
We Southern Baptists are people who believe in the inerrant Book - with a history of seemingly errant interpretations.
That is both honest and consistent. And when we have that attitude we won't be quite as smug and uncooperative as we would be without it.
In His Grace,
Wade
posted by Wade Burleson | Wednesday, September 05, 2007
184 Comments:
Wade said, "However, I am honest enough to say that my discomfort is personal and cultural — and not Biblical."
Are you saying the Bible allows women to be pastors or elders and you believe that? Do not confuse the issue with slavery. I am asking you a question about women pastors. Leave the slavery issue alone please.
Thank you.
Mike
For many, the issues of slavery and segregation were resolved by the recognition that the others were fellow human beings, not some inferior creature. It's sad that so many cannot have the same awareness about the male-female issue. Many women have left the SBC so they can serve God in the way they are called. Many others have rejected Christianity altogether because they have been told it teaches female inferiority. These teachings are as harmful as previous adherence to slavery and segregation.
There is much in Jesus' teachings that can make us uncomfortable - giving up possessions or loving enemies, for example - but that is no reason not to try.
Susie
After reading this piece can we change our attitude about one another?
If not, you need to look in the inerrant Book and read 1st Corinthians 13 again.
Did not Biblical slavery differ from American slavery in that one usually resulted from a loss in battle (or indentured servant hood) and the other entailed ripping someone from their homeland and forcing them to serve somewhere the remainder of their earthly lives? I do believe that our abolitionists brethren did have the proper interpretation. My disagreement with American slavery would not have been “cultural” but indeed Biblical. My disagreement with women elders would not be “cultural” but indeed Biblical. "Anyone see the consistency?" (But a Deaconess would be fine.)
John in St. Louis
I think the key word here is "fear." Fear of change. Fear of the unfamiliar. Like so many who grew up in the SBC, I was convinced that the Bible prohibits women serving as pastors. It was so bad that on a trip to my hometown in Maryland, my family's pastor, a woman, wanted to visit with me and talk shop. I was beyond rude and condescending back then, and now as I look back, I am embarrassed at my behavior.
As recently as last year, the church where I am a member was to have an associate pastor fill the pulpit. I almost didn't go, because I didn't want to sit under the preaching of a woman. But I went, and God seriously dealt with my heart that day. Not only because of the gentle and compassionate, yet firm way she dealt with the text, but because of my fear and prejudice over the years.
The next day I called her and apologized for my attitude, and she shared her story with me. She had grown up in the SBC, and her church told her that she was missing the mark when talking about God's calling on her life. They told her she was a sinner. So she left the SBC, and followed a more friendly path.
I think it is fear, not a proper interpretation of Scripture that keeps women out of the pulpit. Maybe it is fear of the competition--she preached most of the men I have heard in my lifetime right under the table. She was good. Maybe that's what men fear most.
Jason Kearney
Anon-Mike,
The issues of biblical meanings regarding slavery and women's roles in the church are both issues of interpretation. Were we to leave denominational affiliation out it would even be proper to bring the old beliefs that the Bible supported the sun moving around the earth into the debate. (Joshua 10:13)
Wade's statement about Southern Baptists wrongly interpreting an inerrant Bible (he failed to mention that no inerrant copies are known to exist) are so true.
Anon-anon,(8:15) So you claim to have an inerrant copy of The Book? Are you absolutely sure your copy translated the meanings of the ancient languages into English correctly?
Nativevermonter,
Can you please explain the difference in taking a slave as a spoil of war and taking a slave by force from their home?
Susie is correct. Many of our Christian beliefs drive people away from the very Savior we profess to share. Gandhi even said it was so.
Mac McFatter
Semmes, Al
It is not fear just a deep conviction that the Bible doesn't allow for women pastors.
If one begins doubting his interpretation of every doctrine based on the existence of misinterpretation in the past and present, then how long until the gospel is one of the doctrines that comes under scrutiny? Just because someone got something wrong doesn't automatically mean every interpretation is in danger of being wrong. Everything is not thrown up for grabs by the misunderstandings of some.
Wade, you are really stirring the pot this day. As one who (in years past) has read many of these 19th century defenses of slavery--many extending even to the thesis that it was a positive good, because it allowed these "poor creatures" to hear the Gospel, whereas they would not in their native land--I believe the comparisons are correct. Logically, for an inerrant book to be used correctly, there must be an inerrant interpreter; and history proves we do not possess those. (The catholic church recognizes that, hence the pope's interpretation is considered inerrant, at least in matters of faith and practice.)
Some will no doubt argue that my position (which, it being first thing in the morning, may well be less consistent that it would be later in the day) means we cannot draw any conclusions from the Word. That is taking my argument to an extreme I do not take it; of course we can draw conclusions, and those conclusions may become convictions. But we should recognize that convictions must be somewhat tentative, and not become dogmatic.
And yes, American chattel slavery was somewhat different from slavery as practiced in the ancient world; but I do not find any Biblical warrant that the difference made slavery OK with God. It still dehumanized the owner, and cheapened the life of the slave.
John Fariss
Darby argued that a misinterpretation in the past does not mean every interpretation today is wrong. That is correct, but it does not critique Wade's argument. Wade's point is an excellent one because the slavery and women issues are so closely tied in the Bible. Wade is not saying that because someone misread one book of the Bible that today others are misreading another. Rather, the verses used to justify slavery are often right next to the verses used to justify the treatment of women.
Mike,
I am saying I know the Biblical arguments on both sides of the issue.
Darby Livingston,
You said, "If one begins doubting his interpretation of every doctrine based on the existence of misinterpretation in the past and present, then how long until the gospel is one of the doctrines that comes under scrutiny?"
I appreciate your spirit and concern for the gospel.
The gospel is already under scrutiny - and has been from day one.
But a humble approach to interpretation of the inerrant Scripture does not negate the power of the gospel. I am puzzled why there may be fear that humility in the interpretation of non-essentials causes one to fear losing a grip on the essentials.
That sounds paranoid to me.
I don't mind anonymous comments with signatures, but anonymous people without them - unless you are a missionary in a security three zone - are for cowards.
This is a coward free zone.
I see what you're doing there, Wade: you're saying belief in an inerrant source revelation isn't validation of our interpretation of it.
Next you'll be saying that we either need deific validation of our interpretation OR we must reason together to interpret that revelation...which means at times accepting others belief as just as valid as ours.
I'm on you...no more tricks like that!!
Greg Harvey
P.S. I'm not sure deific is a word, but it strikes me as having a similar construction to salvic. ;)
Greg W.H.
No truer statement has ever been made in my comment section than your's above . . .
You're saying belief in an inerrant source revelation isn't validation of our interpretation of it.
If all could understand that concept we would stop tossing around the inerrancy word as if it were a vaccine against stupidity.
And I happen to be an inerrantist.
But it doesn't mean I am not sometimes stupid. Jason Kearney's response above strikes a chord of humility and is a model for us all.
Wade Burleson said...
Mike,
I am saying I know the Biblical arguments on both sides of the issue.
Wade, please answer the question based on the fact "you know the Biblical arguments on both sides of the issue."
Do you personally believe from your study of the Bible that women can be pastors and elders?
I am asking you to reach a conclusion and tell what your personal belief is rather than "you know the Biblical arguments on both sides of the issue."
Thanks.
Mike J
Mike,
Why is it that you can't accept an answer. I know the Biblical arguments on both sides, and I believe that it is possible for both sides to be in error.
When I come to I Timothy 3 text I teach BOTH positions, let people know that conservatives disagree, tell them our church does not have female pastors for reasons other than a Biblical argument since we see both sides of the debate.
How is that hard to understand?
i dont believe that the bible condemned slavery. it doesnt. nor does it teach that we should have slaves. it simply told how a slave owner and a slave should behave as christians. i dont like slavery. i dont want slavery to come back. i like the capitalistic society that we live in. and, in this capitalistic society, we have owners of businesses and workers. and, if the workers dont like the way owners do things, then the worker can switch owners. or, he can even become an owner himself. aint america great!
also, the issue about women being pastors is very clearly a biblical one for me. what does the bible teach? and, it's very clear that women should not be pastors...so clear that we have to wonder how anyone could see it any different.
thus, i'd like to know what mike asked under his anonymous comment. wade, do you believe that the bible teaches that women can be pastors?
david
Mike,
Allow me now to press.
There are women pastors in evangelical, conservative churches across the world, including Baptist, charismatic, Presbyterian, Assembly, etc . . .
In your study of the Word of God, are these women continuing in open, unrepentant sin - and if so, is Ichabod (the glory has departed) written over the ministries, and do you believe that unless they repent they may very well not be saved?
I need an answer please.
:)
Mr. Volfann,
I invite you to answer my question to Mike as well.
"But a humble approach to interpretation of the inerrant Scripture does not negate the power of the gospel. I am puzzled why there may be fear that humility in the interpretation of non-essentials causes one to fear losing a grip on the essentials."
I'm all for a humble approach to interpretation. However, I don't think that means that a correct interpretation can't be found. And I don't think it means that one is forced to waffle on everything besides the gospel. The gospel is essential. But I strive to convince people of things other than the gospel based on the exposition of Scripture. I admit that my interpretation may be wrong. But I still give the reasons for my interpretation. Erasmus wanted to remain doctrinally tentative. Luther would have none of it saying, "The Holy Spirit is not a skeptic." The question is whether the gospel is the only thing the Spirit inspired, or did he inspire the rest. If he inspired the rest of the Bible, as well as the gospel, then we must believe it's possible to be guided by him into the truth. Which means if there is a disagreement between Christians - either one or both are wrong. But there is an objective truth. I also think a look at mainline denominations would prove that a loosy-goosy handling of the text may not begin with the gospel, but eventually the gospel will be a target. It's not paranoia. It's observation. Once a decision is made that the correct interpretation of the Bible cannot be found on a lesser issue, it's not long before the same logic is applied to the gospel.
Before this thread degrades any further, I would like to commend RL Vaughn and Wade for the way they've handled this post. Due to Mr. Vaughn's and Wade's attitude, we are able to have a dialogue regarding this issue rather than fall into labeling and name calling. Both have made excellent points for us all to honestly consider. I think if one looks at this post objectively, we can see how we can disagree, yet cooperate.
Grace,
Jeff Parsons
Wade,
Thanks for your messages. I appreciate what you have said. That have been illuminating and reveal much.
Allow me now to press you please.
However, you have not answered the question below. The question is black and white. Again, I appreciate your responses but you have not answered the question and I believe it is an important one given your position as an IMB trustee elected by SBC convention.
I am asking you to reach a conclusion and tell what your personal belief is rather than "you know the Biblical arguments on both sides of the issue."
I await your answer rather than taking the conversation down another road with a question for me and others. Nice debate technique but please answer the question. Thanks again.
Mike J
Thanks.
Mike J
Wade,
I can answer your question for you...from my limited experience in East Asia the past few years I can unequivocally say that the Christian church in China would not have exploded to the millions of believers it is today without women pastoring churches!
I grew up in Alabama, and still live here, and the idea of a woman pastoring my local church makes me uncomfortable, I will be honest.
But when I went across the world and met some absolutelty amazing women who are leading huge churches and risking their lives for Christ, my comfort became less important than the Gospel being preached.
God is using women as pastors around the world to lead staggering numbers of people to Christ- both men and women. We need to stop looking at the Bible as if it was written only for Americans. Where are the "World Christians"?
Matt Latta
Slavery
1. I don's see exegetical evidence that slavery is a sin
2. I do see exegetical evidence that slavery is not ideal for man (Paul's instruction to slaves in 1 Corinthians).
3. Out of love for neighbor, I'm glad slavery is no longer in existence in America.
Women
1. I see exegetical evidence that they are priests to God who are to be spiritually engaged in doing the will of the Lord.
2. I see exegetical evidence that authority issues are tied back to creation (Timothy, Ephesians 5, 1 Cor. 11).
3. I think Jon Zens makes the best argument for women functioning as teachers of men in the church (if I understand him correctly)--and I don't believe he is driven by a feminist agenda. I think he is driven by a theological agenda to smash the clergy/laity distinction into a million pieces.
4. However, point # 2 above still makes me side with the male leadership side.
5. No, I don't think I have all the answers, so don't ask (ha, ha, ha, ha ,ha...)
Alcohol
1. I believe that believers are ONLY under the law of Christ.
2. Therefore, I don't see exegetical evidence for moderation being a sin.
3. I don't drink at all [for those who are wondering:)]
As far as I can tell, I think I am being consistent--even if I am wrong:)
Benji
God can use a donkey if He wants to....in fact, He has.
but, women preaching is not God's design, nor is it His best way to do things. now, can God use it. yes. martin luther got saved in a catholic church, so anything is possible...God can use His Word. but, a woman who is a pastor, or who stands to preach and teach over men is wrong...plain and simple....wrong. it's not God's design.
now, i'm not saying that they're not saved. no one that i saw has even mentioned such a thing. but, i'm saying that they are either very misguided, or ignorant of the bible, or else they very well could have a rebellious spirit.
let me ask you something, wade. did God not love king david? was king david not a man after God's own heart? and yet, david had many wives. this was not God's design either....yet, david did it. and, God still used david in a great way. but, him having many wives brought about trouble and heartache in david's life, and in the nation of israel. the same thing goes for women pastors and preachers and teachers over men, and for divorced men being in the ministry, and anything else that goes against the clear teaching of scripture.
david
My personal belief, Mike, is that pastoral leadership is male - but I also personally believe I could be wrong on this issue. I have said this one cajillion times. :)
Mike, you illustrate to me the problem we are facing in the SBC - you want black and white answers on non-essential gospel issues and threaten anyone who disagrees.
I am saying that people like us should take a deep breath - believe what we believe on the non-essentials - and cooperate with those who disagree with us. The question you should be asking is 'why do some desire this question to be 'an essential' of the faith?
David,
Thanks for your answer.
I appreciate your honesty in saying every woman pastor in the world is either ignorant, misguided, or rebellious.
I respect you David, because of all the people who have debated this subject you remain consistent.
You believe there is nothing inherently wrong with slavery from a Biblical standpoint. There is something wrong from a Biblical standpoint with women pastors and since your equate your interpretations of these doctrines on the same level as your belief in the inerrant Bible, those who disagree with you are either ignorant, misguided, or rebellious.
I find your honesty refreshing. I mean it.
Those that I know of that defended slavery were not slaves themselves. They benefitted directly or indirectly from the system. Most of those who say women are inferior are male. The women who defend this view negate their own argument by speaking out, since they apparently expect to be heard.
Answer this, guys: are women human or not? Did Jesus die to save women or only men? Are disciples expected to use all their abilities to serve Him?
Susie
wade,
i always try to be honest, and i always try to surrender my heart and mind to the Lord and to His Word. sometimes, i fail Him...too many times. that's why i'm so glad that He's such a gracious God.
but, in answer to your statement above. it's not an essential of the faith, but as sb's we want to be true to the clear teachings of the bible...do we not? and, we want to please God with how we practice our christianity and in how we do church...do we not? and thus, we should strive to do what God clearly teaches in His Word, and this is clearly taught in His Word. so, why would we not want to follow this clear teaching? are we trying to go along with the modern day, feminist thinking?
david
Wade: God can do anything He wants to, anywhere He wants to, anytime He wants to, any way He wants to, and to or with anyBODY He wants to.
God has told us all we know about how He works. We make the mistake of thinking that what He's told us is all there is. That's one way we elevate ourselves and humanize God. Doing that sends chills up and down my spine.
If God wants to use a lady to preach, He can and will do it and I'd better listen. For me to say that the Bible indicates He will never do that, is ludicrous.
What God has told us is all we know, but it sure isn't all HE knows. And come to think of it, I don't know any clear instructions on this issue and being a good Baptist, I think the local church is going to have to decide that. I'm not ready to go back to the PCA.
Wade to be follow your argument isn't the same argument used by homosexuals. The clear commands of Scripture are contextualize away as some meaningless commands given years ago? Looking forward to your response.
Blessings
Jeff
suzie, you said, "Answer this, guys: are women human or not? Did Jesus die to save women or only men? Are disciples expected to use all their abilities to serve Him?"
of course women are human. i dont know of any conservative, bible believing preachers or theologians who would say different. and, of course, Jesus died for women as well as men. and, women are to use thier abilities to serve the Lord. every bible believing Christian believes this.
respectfully, what's your point? this doesnt change that God has made men and women different, and has given them different roles in life.
david
It would also be helpful if people would understand (susie) that godly men and women who do not believe in women preachers/pastors do not CONSIDER WOMEN INFERIOR. Why do you assume this? Acceptance is a two way street: If you want me to accept your convictions, please accept my beliefs as convictions, not a social bias.
Jeff,
Sexual immorality contextualized and done away with as a command of God - compared to contextualizing of a command for women not to proclaim the glorious riches of Jesus Christ to the sexually immoral.
Are you serious?
Yes, the principle you teach applies to both. Now, I believe homosexuality is a sin. In fact it is clearly commanded in Scripture
But so is this: That a woman is not to teach a man.
I am simply pointing out that the same argument used by you, can be used by the homosexual community, and in fact is use by them.
So when you preach on homosexuality---do you present both sides of the argument---if not why?
Blessings
Jeff
Wade Burleson said...
"My personal belief, Mike, is that pastoral leadership is male - but I also personally believe I could be wrong on this issue. I have said this one cajillion times. :)"
Wade, are there any "non-essentials of the faith" that are black and white to you? Or are there any second or third or fourth or... tier issues that are black and white to you."
Wade, are there any "essentials of the faith" that are black and white to you? Are there any "essentials of the faith" that are not black and white to you?
And just because you have said something a cajillion times, does not make it right--nor does it make it right if I said it a cajillion times. However, when the Bible says it, I believe it to be right. Women cannot pastor or be an elder. What is so hard about believing that without waffling? Are we afraid/fearful of being correct in the world today?
Mike J
Wade,
I am not an inerrantist; I can live with the term infallible (I'm sure the good Lord is glad to know what I can live with!). Our real problems begin when we equate infallibility or inerrancy with literalness.
Just for fun, I like to play a little game called "what our churches would look like if we were really took the NT literally." Here's a start; then everyone else can play at home.
1. When we gather for worship, we would have a psalm,
2. then a teaching,
3. then a revelation,
4. then a tongue,
5. then an interpration (1 Cor 14:26).
6. But we would not let more than two or three tongues and interpretations take place (1 Cor 14:27).
7. Two or three prophets would speak and
8. Then the other prophets there would pass judgment on what they said! (1 Cor. 14:29). (What a staff meeting!)
9. The women would keep silent (1 Cor 14:34).
10. A bishop/overseer/pastor (oh, what is a literalist to do with such a word?) would be:
a. Above reproach
b. The husband of one wife
c. Temperate
d. Prudent
e. Respectable
f. Hospitable
g. Able to teach
h. Not addicted to wine (doesn't say anything, literally speaking, about beer or liquor)
i. Not pugnacious (!)
j. Gentle
k. Uncontentious (!)
l. Free from the love of money (!!)
m. Etc.
But the truth is, isn't it, that we are all selectively literal. Some of us choose to take the verses about women literally without taking the cultural context seriously while taking it seriously in other places so as to enable us to skip over other "outmoded" teachings.
If anybody out there really takes it all literally, let's make an appointment to get together and take up some serpents and sip some poison while we turn the other cheek and pray for our enemies.
Jeff,
Thanks for being straghtforward in your views. You believe . . .
"A woman teaching a man the glorious riches of Jesus Christ is as much of a sin as the act of sexual immorality through adultery and homosexuality."
This is why I will never leave the SBC. Too much to straighten out.
:)
Jeff,
I have posed the same question previously. The answer I received is what you are about to hear. Your argument will be pitted point by point so as to equate women preachers with being homosexuals.
Wade has not dealt with the essence of the matter...the damage his consistent contextualization does to biblical text and biblical, consistent, systematic theology. I do admit that determining a contextual interpretation for biblical passages is a narrow ledge down which to walk...BUT we all choose to walk it to some degree. If not we then MUST open the door to the pro-gay theology of those like Soulforce. Darby's point is quite salient on this issue, if we open the door, how wide will it swing?
Scott,
My confidence in the atonement of Jesus Christ for sinners is not shaken by churches that call women as preachers. I feel sorry for those who immediately see a crisis in the Christian faith when someone is serious about seeing texts in context and come away with a different conclusion than us on non-essentials.
I glad you see how clear I am, and I am glad we do not rate sins. Which sin can we commit and still be faithful to Scripture? Please straighten me out on this one. :)
If the call is correctly handle the word of God which part are we not to handle correctly?
Thanks for your humble service to the convention by attempting to lead some people like me to the light.
But then again, perhaps I am staying put for the same reasons, or at least that is how I contextualize my ministry.
I am surprised that a man of your intelligence cannot grasp the principles used by homosexuals are the same as those who believe in women preachers/pastors. Your smiley face reminds me of the smiles I get from some people after the insult me. They say it with a smile, but the intent is still received.
Nevertheless Blessings to You
Jeff T
Jeff,
No offense intended. I honestly appreciate a man as straightfoward as you who compares the dark and sinful euphoria of homosexual relationships with the dark and sinful practice of a woman proclaiming the glorious riches of Jesus Christ to a sinner who happens to be a man.
Wade,
I trust your readers will take the time to not only read Emily's very good essay but also the comment thread which, from my perspective anyway, reveals quite nicely just who is the inconsistent one.
What, I'd really like to know though, if you don't mind is which SB theologians argued since the Bible is infallible, therefore the institution of slavery is so? That does not seem to be Manley's argument but rather his assumption. Hence, it appears a hermeneutical question, not one of infallibility.
Moreover, as a followup, it'd be nice to know specifically whom you are referring to today that argues from infallibility to complementarianism rather than arguing from Scripture's *meaning*.
You further state that "Some Southern Baptists in the 1800's were not convinced the Scriptures supported the insitution of slavery, but *personally supported slavery for personal and cultural reasons* and did not harbor animosity toward those on the other side." What do you mean by "personal & cultural"?
And, if you don't mind, could you please name for us some of these giants of SB history who believed they stood squarely for slavery but not because Scripture warranted it?
What seems to continually confuse me is how those who are either egalitarian or self-proclaimed 'complementarians'--but for cultural and personal reasons, not scriptural--cannot seem to understand that SB, for good or for bad, became a complementarian community in 2000. Most egalitarians fully accept this. They know they possess little hope for a place in the denominational service line. Why one continues to kick this dust baffles the heck out of me.
Mercy. With that, I am...
Peter
Mike R, I would like to play a game and see what our churches would like if contextualize everything.
As you can see their is blank spot because that is exactly what the church would be in our world.
I am aware of the dangers of an extreme literal approach to Scripture, but there are certain areas where Scripture is clear as I have tried to demonstrate to Wade, but he can't get past the analogy to see the principles of the argument.
Nevertheless Blessings to You
Jeff T
I must admit that it is difficult for me to read many of these comments. Thankfully I am comfortable as a woman who is in Christ, that was not always the case. Reading some of these comments makes me remember why.
I believe the major problem many have in all of this is a lack of faith in the guidance of the Spirit of God. We must have every jot and tittle hammered out with logical, hermeneutical precision to avoid error because we no longer believe the Spirit is up to the task of leading us into truth. We no longer believe that he is capable of sufficiently guiding us where Scripture seems to be difficult or unclear. We think that is too "subjective" and prone to error, when in reality our dependence upon our own reasoning/interpreting abilities has not kept the church from error - ever. And so we beat one another up with our own interpretations out of fear rather than confidence in God and his work. It was just a matter of time before this conversation went down the road of "if we budge in small things we'll soon give up the gospel" because we don't trust the Spirit to keep us.
Sad, really.
"I feel sorry for those who immediately see a crisis in the Christian faith when someone is serious about seeing texts in context and come away with a different conclusion than us on non-essentials."
Don't cry for me Argentina. I for one do not immediately see a crisis in the faith over differing interpretations. However, I also do not think that eventual crises in the faith can't happen by going down this road. For instance, John Piper is about to release a refutation of NT Wright on an issue that seems to be nothing more than a contextual disagreement. It is precisely because Wright is so solid as an expositor, and so respected by such a wide range of Christians, that sharp minds like Piper must refute him. In the end, I think Piper will show how the gospel itself is threatened by the different view.
No offense intended. I honestly appreciate a man as straightfoward as you who compares the dark and sinful euphoria of homosexual relationships with the dark and sinful practice of a woman proclaiming the glorious riches of Jesus Christ to a sinner who happens to be a man.
That's our minister folks. :)
Debbie, But who are we judge the homosexual as sinful? What right do we have? Are we being consistent? The homosexual would say we are not. My point which both you and Wade missed was a comparison of the principles not people....When you jump to conclusions it makes dialogue difficult.
Let's be honest, an elder is far more than just someone proclaiming the glorious riches of Jesus Christ to a sinner who happens to be a man. That may be the task of an evangelist. But eldership is about more than that. I hope we don't have to define every term now in order to be taken rightly.
Again to show the shortcomings of Wade's argument.
Suppose, The homosexual pastor preaches the Gospel, and a sinner is saved. So does it make it right to misinterpret the qualifications for the office of pastor?
Nevertheless Blessings to You.
Jeff T
Bob,
You said... "God can do anything He wants to, anywhere He wants to, anytime He wants to, any way He wants to, and to or with anyBODY He wants to."
You seem to forget this fact, namely that God cannot deny Himself and that He will not contradict Himself or His Word. God means what He says, and says what He means.
The Bible record is clear textually and contextually... Pastoral leadership is given by God to men. Men are to be the spiritual leaders of the home and the church. This is God's design, and it illustrates the miraculous relationship of Christ and His Church.
Are men and women equal in the eyes of God... Absolutely!
Are men and women indentical in the eyes of God... Absolutely Not!
Equal worth... but not equal roles.
Thanks...
Joe W.
Volfan,
Do you hold that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?
Aside from holding to the inerrancy of Scripture, what must a person ALSO believe to be in good standing with you?
It seems that so many have forgotten that many "inerrantists" are also "egalitarians." Down here at Baylor, we call 'em Northern Evangelicals. In many cases, that's an appropriate description.
The current SBC has decided to exclude this group of inerrantists. So be it. It's just rather odd that the so-called "Battle for the Bible" was supposedly about inerrancy yet folks like Volfan aren't willing to cooperate with a group of inerrantists with a different view of gender....
Acts 18:
24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[b] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Seems to me Priscilla was involved in explaining to Appolos the way of God more clearly. Woman teaching a man.
Matthew 28:
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
Women were the first evangelists of the resurrection.
Galatians 3:
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Seems as clear as Paul saying women arent to teach men.
The question becomes, as Wade has alluded to, there may be more than one explanation as to why Paul women not to teach. Everyone on this list is likely familiar with the arguments.
Generally, the women were uneducated. Where they were educated, like Priscilla, there is no condemnation.
It would have been culturally inconceivable for a woman to teach a man. Not so today.
The "authority" argument doesn't wash with me due to Galatians 3.
Also, my grandmother (in a different denomination) pasted a church for over 40 years with wonderful results. You'll have a hard time indeed convincing me that women are not qualified to pastor.
But feel free to try.
:)
Thanks Wade for your even-handed approach to this subject.
sorry for the typos.
Let me save you all some time. Here is a baseball bat in the shape of a Bible. Go ahead, beat me. It's faster.
Debbie,
You're funny.
:)
I'll gladly take the blows for you Debbie.
Does it seem odd to anyone else that "we" say women are equal-they just cant do this or that? That seems unequal to me.
And what about this one?
Ephesians 5:
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Men are definitely supposed to submit to women. And vice-versa.
i'm ready to join with anyone... anyone...anyone who believes the bible and seeks to live out it's clear teachings. now, if someone wants to dismiss the clear teachings of scripture... then, adios, muchachos! yall didnt know that i could speak spanish, did ya?
now, about things that are not clearly taught in the bible...the gray areas...we can agree to disagree all day long and still worship together, and then go eat a cheeseburger together. but, when someone starts denying the clear teachings of the bible, then there's a problem.
david
Volfann,
Would you please give me the clear teachings of the Bible on the following:
(1). Can a woman ever teach a man or have authority over a man?
(2). Should the Lord's Supper ever be shared with people not part of your local church?
(3). Is it a sin for a believer to pray in a language he does not understand?
Those three are sufficient for now. Also, please answer this question. If someone disagrees with you on the above, would you consider him or her a Southern Baptist worthy of your cooperation?
David, I want to have a baby, but can't. Yet, I am equal to a woman.
Please no jokes :)
Belief Matters,
Your desire to have a baby is a physical difference not an equality difference. I enjoyed the thought though. Thanks for the laugh.
Volfan,
I assume you agree with the clear teaching of scripture that women are never allowed to speak at all in church?
1 Corinthians 14
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
DavidM,
You said "Does it seem odd to anyone else that "we" say women are equal-they just cant do this or that? That seems unequal to me."
No more odd that "we" say God the Son is equal with God the Father--He just couldn't do this or that [i.e., disobey His Father]
1 Cor. 11:3
Oh, how I need to read some of this "Risk Management" book...
Grace
Benji
I want to say I see where Wade is coming from here. I generally agree with his point, I just think great care must be taken to determine where to draw the line. He makes it clear in his last response to volfann that there are parts of Scripture open to interpretation. Those texts aren't going to get any clearer. One is just going to have to settle on what h