The Contaminated Pulpit and Other Weird Things
Prior to the vote for adoption of the BFM 2000 I had written a couple of open letters that were published in our state Baptist paper. The letters articulated my feelings that the proposed confession contained a couple of tertiary, non-essential doctrines - including the prohibition of women 'Senior Pastors' - that should never have been placed there by the BFM committee in the first place. I explained that the Baptist Faith and Message, the only statement of doctrinal consensus that defined the parameters of our missionary cooperation, should only focus on the essentials of our faith and Baptist identity. Though my church and I would be uncomfortable having a 'woman' Senior Pastor because of the current prohibition in the BFM, the fact of the matter is that there is no such position (Sr. Pastor) ever mentioned in the Bible and there are hundreds of Baptist women pastors all over the world, particularly overseas in cultures where it is quite acceptable. Most importantly, the Bible doesn't prohibit it. A prohibition like this seemed to me to be very Western (cultural) and definitely extra-biblical. Nevertheless, when it came time to vote for the 2000 BFM I voted for its adoption, believing that the prohibition statement was really not that big of a deal.Little did I realize at the time that there was a movement beginning in the far right of the SBC to exclude women from ALL ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention. Some believed then, and believe now, that any ministry conducted by women that involves 'teaching' men (over 12) or having 'authority over men' should be universally prohibited. The BFM 2000 was used as the basis for this removal of women from their God-called, Spirit-led ministries, even though the BFM only prevented women from serving as 'Senior Pastors'.
Illustrations of the Effects of the SBC Move Against Women
In 2004 Dr. Karen Bullock, a conservative scholar and acclaimed author, was removed from her position as Professor of Church History at Southwestern Theological Seminary. At the time, Dr. Bullock, a member of the SWBTS faculty since 1994, was one of the more popular Southwestern professors and also served as the Assistant Dean of the School of Theology. Dr. Bullock was removed from her position only because she was female. It is widely believed that Dr. Bullock delivered one of the greatest chapel talks (i.e. 'sermons') in the history of Southwestern Theological Seminary. The tape has since been removed from Southwestern's archives, but we intend to post the audio in the next few weeks. The pulpit from behind which Dr. Bullock spoke was eventually removed from Southwestern's chapel under orders of the new President of SWBTS Dr. Paige Patterson. Dr. Patterson explained to those he had remove it that it had been contaminated by a 'woman' preaching behind it. Though the rumor persisted that the historic pulpit had been taken out and burned, the truth is far less dramatic. It remains hidden behind stacks of supplies in a closet at the seminary's library, never having seen the light of day since its removal.
The forced exit of Dr. Bullock had been preceded in 2001 by the removal of Dr. David Crutchley from his position as the Dean of the School of Theology. Crutchley was the man that had recommended the trustees hire Dr. Bullock. In addition, Dr. Kenneth Hemphill, President of Southwestern Theological Seminary, was eventually forced out when he saw the handwriting on the wall. A Tenure Review Committee, formed by SWBTS trustees and VP Craig Blaising, opposed Dr. Hemphill's Presidential recommendation that Dr. Karen Bullock be granted tenure. Though Dr. Hemphill called his eventual departure an 'early retirement', it is obvious through his correspondence to the Tenure Review Committee that there was a sharp disagreement over the denial of tenure to Dr. Karen Bullock, and of course, Dr. Hemphill went to work for the Executive Committee in Nashville making for a very short 'early' retirement. When Dr. Paige Patterson was hired to replace Dr. Hemphill one of his first acts was to hire David Allen (who just happened to be the SWBTS trustee who chaired the board meeting at which Patterson was hired). The chairman of the search committee, Dr. Denny Autrey, was also elevated to a top post in the Patterson administration.
Of course, it is now a matter of sworn testimony that Dr. Patterson also orchestrated the removal of Dr. Sheri Klouda, the Professor of Hebrew in the School of Theology at SWBTS, solely because of her gender. Dr. Patterson says he believed he was simply fulfilling the wishes of the Southern Baptist Convention and the BFM 2000 'prohibition' of women pastors by removing Dr. Klouda. To believe this, you must overlook the fact that Southwestern itself trained Klouda in the Hebrew language, awarding her the Ph.D.. And for you to accept her removal as justified, you must agree with the statement that her being hired to teach Hebrew was 'a momentary lapse of parameters'. The real issue is that men who are now in charge at Southwestern don't want women around. As recently as the fall of 2006, a professor at SWBTS refused to allow three female Master of Divinity students to 'preach' with males present. All male Master of Divinity students were told not to come to the class the day the females were to 'preach,' and even the professor himself sent his wife to 'listen' to the women 'indulge in the exposition' of Scripture.
It has long been known that there have been attempts by trustees at the International Mission Board to remove any woman from a 'position of authority' within the organization. It is a known fact that there is not one female Regional Leader and that there are less than a handful of Strategy Coordinators at the International Mission Board who are female - and their positions are in jeopardy. In addition, there is no female on the Executive Team at the Administration Offices - except the secretary who is there to take notes. Not all IMB trustees have been involved with the effort to minimize roles, and maybe IMB Executive Staff should share the responsibility for the reduced role of women within the IMB, but I find it hard to fault them because of their fear of reprisal for going against trustee leadership desires.
In early 2006 I confronted a small group of male trustees led by Bill Sutton, the hunting friend of Paige Patterson, and Bob Pearle, the pastor of Paige Patterson, who were discussing how to remove the woman who was the acting Vice-President of the International Mission Board. I overheard a late night meeting between these men and another eight to ten trustees in the lobby of the hotel where we IMB trustees were being housed. This 'informal' caucus of men was discussing how to remove the Vice-President from her position and the steps needed to accomplish their goal. The sentiment was expressed that a woman had no place being in this particular position of authority. After listening to just a minute or two of their discussion I went upstairs to get a couple of friends to act as witnesses. I then came back down to the lobby and confronted the trustees. I let them know, in no uncertain terms, that not only was their meeting a violation of our 'Blue Book' which stated that during regularly scheduled IMB trustee meetings no trustees shall meet in 'caucus' sessions, either formal or informal, to discuss IMB business and that the opinions I had overheard expressed in that caucus meeting about women were a violation of Christian charity, not to mention Scripture.
The morning after the late night confrontation, I went to the female Vice-President and Dr. Rankin and told them that there might be a motion designed to either publicly humiliate or remove the Vice-President from her 'acting' position. I told them both that if it came in the plenary session, as I had heard discussed, to not worry - I would not let her be mistreated. It was in that particular January trustee meeting in 2006 that the motion came to move into Executive Session (closed doors). I was seated on the front row and asked the Chairman, Tom Hatley, why we were moving into Executive Session. He did not answer me, and so I turned to my friend Rick Thompson, pastor of Council Road Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, and said, "Rick, get ready, they are going after Wendy. I'm not going to let them. This could get heated.".
Once the doors were closed I heard the motion . . . "I move that Wade Burleson be removed from the International Mission Board for . . .". Rick and I looked at each other in disbelief and shock. Then I knew. The system established years ago for the appointment of trustees enabled our boards and agencies to be filled with only like-minded Southern Baptists who would elect trustee leaders that had a particular ideology. I don't know if it should be called 'Fundamentalism'...maybe not. One thing is for sure; in this closed system, no dissent or questioning is allowed. We must find some way as Southern Baptists to end our narrowness on certain issues or we are going to lose the blessing of experiencing the gifts and talents of the women in our convention who are filled with the love of Christ.
The Issue Is Not About Women Senior Pastors
In a convention where a macho President can carry shotguns onto the lawn of one of our seminaries and fire rounds at squirrels in trees (as happened last Friday), and in a convention that often resembles the soap opera 'Dallas' where gas wells are being drilled in the old RV parking lot to supplement seminary income (as it is at SWBTS), and in a convention where the indoctrination of future pastors includes the teaching that the only rightful place of women is in the home as a homemaker, and in a convention that continues to fund degrees in homemaking for women at institutions that used to be known for great classical, pastoral training, and in a convention that sometimes seems really scared to simply let the sisters function, it is time we took a very hard look at the direction we are heading. And, it has nothing to do with 'Senior Pastors' being women.
For a long while I have justified my participation in the Conservative Resurgence as a desire to keep our convention committed to the sacred, infallible word of God. I really did believe we were battling for the Bible. And though I could not see in the Bible where there was any direct 'prohibition' against women pastors, I was willing to let that slide because I am not personally bothered by the prohibition. To me there were more important matters, and I was not interested in making the removal of this prohibition an issue. However, now that I have seen that the SBC is moving further and further to the right by trustees adding ADDITIONAL restrictions and ADDITIONAL prohibitions THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE, I now know that something needs to be done and I cannot be silent. If it seems to you that I am advocating women pastors, you are dead wrong. I am speaking out because I am seeing the prohibition against women pastors as a smoke screen for other activities within the SBC that are both unjustifiable and illogical.
Women are being removed as SBC professors.
Women are being removed from the SBC classrooms.
Women are being removed from serving as SBC administrators.
Women are being removed as SBC strategic coordinators on the mission field.
All this under the justification that the BFM says women shall not be 'Senior Pastors'. What? How do the above positions fall under the category of 'Senior Pastor'? The BFM doesn't say women can't serve in these areas!
I have an observation: to remove women from being SBC professors, students, missionaries, and administrators, all because the BFM 2000 says they can't serve in those positions is as dishonest as someone acting as if the BFM 2000, the only consensus doctrinal statement of the SBC, prohibits people from serving as missionaries who pray in a private prayer language. Oh, wait, that's already being done.
Wake up people.
In His Grace,
Wade


129 Comments:
From a missionary in the field...
Wow!
Thank God, my prayers are answered. Finally, a man who is not afraid, does not care for the praise of men, lives by principle, and protects the down trodden. I'm not sure the SBC status quo knows what to do. By the way, you write, unlike others, with no grudge. I like that. I also like the fact that you are making a difference. KEEP IT UP!
Get ready for the attacks Wade by the you know who of the blog world. But remember this: For everyone who twists your words and calls you every name they can think of, my wife and I and hundreds of others who read your blog and do not usually comment think you make PERFECT sense. Thanks for being a conservative, Bible believing evangelical who refuses to let people get run over.
Wade,
Just to clarify, David Crutchley wasn't terminated, but was removed from the role of dean. He continued to teach at Southwestern for another four years I believe.
Wade,
Just a point: it is historic Christian doctrine (and it is arguably biblical) that those in authority in the Church (elders) are to be men. The positions in a denomination are a little sketchier, but the same principle may be applied, I believe, to all positions of authority in the Church.
If you do not believe that women are forbidden the office of elder, just say so, and don't continue to affirm that you are a complementarian in these matters.
I keep thinking of this question: how are these actions consistent with the nature and character of God?
1. The BFM2000 does NOT say that Christian women cannot serve in those capacities; Fundamentalists personally interpret the BFM2000, and Scripture the article in question is based upon, to mean that--clearly NOT a view held by the average member of the SBC;
2. ANY year's version of the Baptist Faith and Message WILL suffice for the purposes of our cooperation for the sake of missions and evangelism. Compare the versions--there is not enough difference between the three to have resulted in the absolute foolishness which has arisen in the SBC since 2000 (how adults of the age, years of salvation, and experience that the committee proposing the 2000 version had at the time could make the proposal they did with as little wisdom or foresight as exhibited is baffling);
3. See the Missouri Baptist Convention (where a fight is renewed this month by ultra-Fundamentalists, despite overwhelming opposition by last year's MBC messengers)--and the last two SBC annual meetings--for what to do about this matter. Whose convention is the SBC, and what will those folks do about it--and when?
While I too affirm the office of Elder is solely reserved for a male, I would support a female for the SBC presidency. In fact, out of all the positions available on planet earth, the elder/pastor role is the ONLY one that should be filled by godly men. So there’s still time, someone get to work on nominating a godly woman for Indy.
And just a quick aside: If I had a blog, I would find it somewhat difficult to either post, or allow posts in which I found myself in disagreement. In fact, if it made my blog then it would have my support. And that’s how I read blogs…unless the author has a strong disclaimer up front. In other words, you post it…you own it.
John in the STL
Mr. Ben Wheaton,
Help me with a little exercise as I review and answer your question.
Question: If you do not believe that women are forbidden the office of elder,j ust say so, and don't continue to affirm that you are a complementarian in these matters(?).
Since when is a Professor of Hebrew an elder?
Since when is a Professor of Church History an elder?
Since when is a Vice-President of the International Mission Board and elder?
Since when is a woman in a an M. Div degree program an elder?
Since when is a woman missionary strategist an elder?
Since when is a woman missionary an elder?
Get my point?
The only people who would be foolish enough to say those positions are 'elder' positions are those who are foolish enough to say a seminary is a local church and needs a baptistry, or the world is one big church and needs men ruling.
Don't buy it, sorry. The absurdity of such actions is causing me to push back in the other direction. If people don't like it, they shouldn't bave been doing what they've been doing.
Finally, on a more serious note. When people will let local churches practice their local church autonomy, the ultimate answer to the question you ask is ONLY answered in the local church.
Blessings,
Wade
Although I believe the position of elder and deacon are the two offices in the local church and these two offices ought to be filled by godly men (that's another topic for another day), to make our entities churches is dangerous and when the courts think such it is even more dangerous.
I also agree the bible does not specifically prohibit women from teaching but when we look close at the qualifications of pastor and deacons it clearly flows with language that these positions are to me men.
I have spoken with some over the years who want to make this passage in Timothy a cultural passage and not relevant for us today. Of course that opens a lot of other dangerous doors. Possibly to the point that we can all join Oprah's crusade and say Jesus is no loner relevant, He was a cultural phenomenon.
Just some thoughts early in the morning.
Thanks, Wade, for your continued struggle on behalf of the minorities and the oppressed within the SBC. It was some of the very issues that you raise that led my family and I to resign from the IMB after 16 years of service. We loved our ministry and felt fulfilled in what we were doing, but even the IMB had come to reflect the stranglehold of fundamentalist control that had earlier swept through the seminaries and other entities. The requirement to sign the BF&M 2000 was the final straw for us.
I'm personally thankful that Paige Patterson doesn't have a voice in what goes on in our local church, or our pulpit might well have suffered the fate of the pulpit that Karen Bullock used when she "preached" in chapel. At the annual meeting of the BGCM a couple of years ago, we had the privilege of hearing Billy Graham's daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, as she preached to a packed house in our sanctuary. We were very comfortable with her doing so. I seem to recall something in the NT about the daughters of Phillip being prophetesses and as best I can figure out, a prophetess is a proclaimer of God's Word who just happens to be of the female gender.
Wade,
I saw on CNN the other day were the lightning was very bad in your City. Did it hit your Church or home? Please stay safe, we need your input to keep reminding us Baptist, of what is taking place in SBC. I thank you for the time you take, to tell us the truth.
Fox from Virginia
Wade,
I want to echo the first two out of three who posted: "Wow" and "Get ready for the attacks." But that has already happened, hasn't it?
To be perfectly honest, I am saddened, but not surprised. Some of the tactics used during the CR were not spiritual, but designed to gain control. The thinking seemed to be that the end would justify the means. Well, sadly we sow what we reap. When we begin to be driven and influenced by the world's way of thinking, we have left our first love.
We continue to pray for you and for many others like you who will stand in the gap for the truth and for the right no matter the cost. It is the only hope for the SBC.
Wade,
Before I answer the questions you posed, allow me to put a little background into the conversation.
I believe that in a seminary context, the professors should have the qualifications of elders in the church. I am aware that seminaries such as Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia do this, and I believe that it is a good rule to follow, as seminaries are specifically training facilities for pastors.
I also believe that denominations, whether they are hierarchical (as Presbyterian, Anglican) or cooperative (SBC, BGC) should be led by people who are qualified to be elders. I think that denominational leadership, while not quite the same as church leadership, is similar enough in its exercise that the same rules should apply. In a denomination such as the SBC, which has as one of its defining characteristics the rule that women are not to lead a church, this means that women ought not to lead the denomination. In a denomination that does not make that stipulation, it would be different (although I believe that it would raise issues of ecclesiology that would make such a course unwise).
Now, to respond to your questions:
Since when is a Professor of Hebrew an elder?
All professors at a seminary should qualify as elders (I think).
Since when is a Professor of Church History an elder?
Same as above.
Since when is a Vice-President of the International Mission Board and elder?
That's a more nebulous issue, but I would think that it would be appropriate to make that position also equivalent to elder.
Since when is a woman in a an M. Div degree program an elder?
As I understand it, an M.Div degree's purpose is to equip people for the office of elder. If a denomination has decided that that office is barred to women, it should not be training women to hold that office.
Since when is a woman missionary strategist an elder?
She's not, and I do not think that missionary strategists should be held to the standard of elders.
Since when is a woman missionary an elder?
Same as above.
I think that the above restrictions are logical outcomes of complementarian theology and ecclesiology.
Keep in mind, of course, that I am not in the SBC and so do not fully understand the denominational structures and mindset behind them. But I am from a congregational and baptist background, in a denomination similar in many ways to the SBC. But it may still be different.
And I'm also younger than you, Wade, with none of your experience in these matters, so don't take this as the profound conclusions of a learned divine, but rather the speculations of a simple university student.
Cheers
. . . And the BFM2000 technically isn't a consensus convention document; it was a document approved by majority vote of a few thousand messengers representing a minority number of congregations affiliating with the SBC. It was, by necessity I suppose however, acted upon thereafter as a consensus document by agency heads and others. I can live with that without too much intellectual anguish. It is the extremes to which that document has since been taken via personal interpretation either of the document or the Scriptures upon which it is said to be based--or both--with which I struggle most. Apparently, others do as well.
Again: ANY YEAR'S VERSION OF THE BF&M WILL SUFFICE for cooperation among us for the sake of missions and evangelism (again, compare the documents). Everyone permit everyone else to choose the version (1925 briefer, or 2000 more exhaustive) upon which he or she will stand as best representing his or her theological persuasions, and everyone take two steps forward for Christ into the lost world with the gospel message!
Mr. Burleson,
You have always been, are and will continue to be a small fish in a big pond. Time to pick up your toys and go home.
AB Johns
AB Johns,
I agree, I am a small fish in a big pond.
However, small fishes don't have any toys to pick up, and are always at home in the pond in which they find themselves.
So, I'm here to stay! But right now, I'm off to a conference and some ministry!
"President of SWBTS, Dr. Paige Patterson, who explained to those he had remove it that it had been contaminated by a 'woman' preaching behind it."
I find it not only ironic but disconcerting that gifted women are considered 'dangerous' to the Body when we are witnessing unethical and juvenile behavior from those who are supposed to be 'above reproach'.
David,
You wrote... "Again: ANY YEAR'S VERSION OF THE BF&M WILL SUFFICE for cooperation among us for the sake of missions and evangelism (again, compare the documents). Everyone permit everyone else to choose the version (1925 briefer, or 2000 more exhaustive) upon which he or she will stand as best representing his or her theological persuasions, and everyone take two steps forward for Christ into the lost world with the gospel message!"
This statement, that you have made twice, is not an accurate statement. There are not 3 Baptist Faith and Messages, there is only the one BF&M that has been amended twice. That is why it is called "THE" Baptist Faith and Message.
To say... well, we are going to go by the 1925 BF&M or the 1963 BF&M... is simply a bad misconception. It is like saying... some people here in the USA are under the 1778 Constitution, while others operate under the newest one.
There is only one Constitution, amended several times. Likewise, there is only one BF&M, twice amended.
Wade, I am beginning to see your point, I think. ;)
However, as is often the case, in trying to correct the pendulum be careful you do not swing to far the other way. These questions... "Since when is a Professor of Hebrew an elder? Since when is a Professor of Church History an elder?
Since when is a Vice-President of the International Mission Board and elder? Since when is a woman in a an M. Div degree program an elder? Since when is a woman missionary strategist an elder? Since when is a woman missionary an elder?"... are much better questions than the ones you have been asking. IMHO
Again... you know where I stand. Just be careful in correcting one problem, that you do not create another. Search for the middle ground, I do not think you have found it yet.
Joe W.
They came to prohibit women from being senior pastors and you said nothing because it made sense from from what you had been taught as the correct interpretation of scripture.
Then they came to prohibit Christian women seminary professors but you said nothing because you could see where they could be considered elders or senior pastors
Then They came to prohibit women serving in senior executive roles but you said nothing...again
Then they came to prohibit women from being in ANY position where she seemed to have authority over a male and you said nothing
Then They came to prohibit women from teaching scripture to any male over 13 and you said nothing
Then They came to prohibit women from being ministers in the Holy Priesthood to children and you said nothing
They came to prohibit women from being called ministers at all and denied them as part of the Holy Priesthood and you said nothing
They came to prohibit women from having any input into the Body of Christ and sharing in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and you said nothing
Then you got sick and your wife needed to work but there was no where she could work within Christendom and make enough money to support the family. And since she only had a homemaking classes, she had to wait tables.
And no one said anything.
Of course if you are going to fire the women proffs in the theology school, to be consistent the female proffs in the schools of education need to go - there are many men that go through the EM school and become pastors and youth ministers.
By the way, Dr Bullock is now at BH Carroll Theological Institute with DRs Corley, Smith, Ashlock, Hedin, Spivey and Moore. Check out the school at www.bhcti.org
Mission Statement
B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is a graduate-level community of faith and learning that equips men and women called to serve Christ in the diverse and global ministries of His church.
Vision Statement
Through an integrated network of Fellows, Teaching Churches, and Learning Centers, the Institute seeks to mobilize the priesthood of believers for service in society. It provides, through appropriate media, theological education that is both biblically based and praxis oriented. The Institute develops Christ-centered leaders who are committed to academic excellence, life-long learning, and transformational ministry. The Institute works collegially with other evangelical Christians. Its confessional basis is the consensus of opinion concerning those articles of the Christian faith and practice that have been most surely held and expressed in historic Baptist principles and practices.
Jim Champion
Wade,
It is a fact that there is no position in Scripture such as Senior Pastor (that term has certainly caused its share if theological garbage).
It is also a fact that the Scripture does not prohibit women from proclamation or various other public ministries.
Yet, for anyone to say the Bible does not prohibit women from the role of local church pastor would be a stretch to justify.
The fact that there are hundreds all over the world is not Scriptural justification for that argument, or for anything else for that matter.
Such a statement as the "Scripture does not prohibit women from serving as local church pastors" may very well be as extra-biblical as to say "they cannot teach Hebrew in a seminary."
cb
"Again... you know where I stand. Just be careful in correcting one problem, that you do not create another."
Joe, Just a thought. We are where we are today because some men 'overcorrected'. They eventually allowed the culture to interpret scripture for them. And it moved way past denying the Trinity or Virgin Birth to what we are seeing today: Patriarchy.
The 'overcorrection' is where we are today. I do not think you should fear a monsterous regiment of women. :o)
But I have noticed some inconsistencies in this position such as Dorothy Patterson serving on some committees and Boards that are over OR teaching men, women professors in departments that surely include scripture in seminaries and women trustees.
When one takes a close look, some of these women in these positions are the wives of those who would deny the rest of us even though most competent. So, it seems this issue has more to do with who you are and interpreting the prohibitions thusly so.
Wade,
Dude, you need to give this a rest. You're becoming a caricature of yourself. It's time to move on to reaching the lost instead of forcing your opinions on everyone else.
Les
Lin,
You used the term "overcorrected" very well here.
We agree to the max on that comment.
Therefore, you, me, Wade and many more must be careful not to fall into the same trap.
It is very possible and just too easy.
cb
Joe W.:
Please read my statements again (I have been typing them at this blogsite for longer than a year).
I have said there exist three versions of THE Baptist Faith and Message statement--and that each of us affiliating with the SBC should permit all the rest of us to choose the version of the three that he or she states best represents his or her theological persuasions. Again, the current version of the document was not adopted by anything like a majority of the SBC--and hundreds of thousands of faithful Southern Baptists (start counting with the BGCT) have said that that version does not represent a theological stance they are willing to share in its entirety, for whatever their reasons (not mine)--yet those Southern Baptists continue to support faithfully the Cooperative Program and its objectives with much of their time, talents, and tithes (again, start counting with the Southern Baptists affiliating with the Baptist General Convention of Texas).
As a Baptist by theological persuasion, I--for one--still choose the 1963 version of THE Baptist Faith and Message statement as best representing my biblical stance. Furthermore, my theological persuasion causes me to permit you the freedom to choose your version for adherence, both of us realizing that your Eternal Lord is Jesus Christ and not someone you do not even know named "David".
Is the "contaminated by a woman" story documented? If so, how does any human being, let alone Christian, let alone complementarian justify that? I'd really like to hear it.
Does the seminary not have rules about the possession and discharge of firearms on campus? Can anyone say Virginia Tech?
Dr. Patterson's website proudly displays him posing with a Zebra he has killed. Why would anyone kill a zebra? Or a giraffe? I'm an avid hunter but why kill anything you aren't going to eat? Just because you can?
I'm trying to strike a reasonable response to PP. The Outpost crowd is frankly so over the top that I think they have little credibility. But I'm also very tired of the kneejerk CR reaction of defending PP because he is "Godly." Never mind what he says, he's "Godly". Overlook what he does, he's "Godly."
Moses was "Godly". He was also a deceitful murderer. David was "Godly". He was also a lying adulterous murderer. Solomon was "Godly" and he was also an outrageous polygamist and idol worshiper.
Paige Patterson should not get a pass for bad behavior because of the CR. He should not get a pass because he's "Godly".
Is Dr. Paige Patterson's vision of the SBC what we, as complementarians or egalitarians, want?
Wade, let me encourage you NOT to give it a rest.
While 'stirring the pot' incites anger, outrage and takes us all to task to see if our opinions are indeed opinions, prejudices, traditions of men or solid doctrine, what should be done is that we all lay down our opinions at the feet of Jesus and let Him teach us.
Since often, we refuse to do that, God send us a reformer, a person who stirs our pot.
Anyone who thinks destroying a pulpit because a women stood behind it and spoke about God is so far to the right, reaching them will probably be impossible.
Thank you Wade, keep on keeping on.
Dr. Patterson had the PULPIT removed? A piece of furniture - what, Paige, did it have Evil Spirits in it then or now? Should you have ceremonially burned feathers and chanted instead?
That takes the cake as the STUPIDEST thing I ever heard of happening in a supposedly religious institution. Patterson has gone from crusader to politician to a rather limited seminarian to an utter fool.
Was it just jealousy because she was obviously indwelled with the Spirit while you were chasing the momentary smiles of worldly men?
Wade, please do what you can to get this mess cleaned up before God just chucks the SBC in the fire.
CB,
Let's not forget that God can make big stretches. It's not ours to justify anyway. :)
Wade,
I've learned a good bit of self discipline over the past two years with regard to coming over here. But today I abandon all discretion.
1. Dr. Karen Bullock is one of the kindest, gentlest, most profound, godliest, most gracious, most intelligent, most compassionate, LEAST CONFRONTATIONAL people inhabiting this planet today. She is quite simply everything that you (or I, for that matter) are not. If you have invoked her name in this blog mess without her explicit consent, you ought to be horse whipped. Today.
2. Dr. Stookey met precisely the same fate at precisely the same time in precisely the same manner from precisely the same people while teaching in precisely the same department. Has Steve had gender reassignment surgery while I wasn't looking? The last I knew, he was a wonderful, godly Christian MAN. Was he denied tenure simply for being a woman? And if not, doesn't it stretch credulity to offer an entirely different theory for his story than for hers?
3. A few posts ago you categorized complementarians as racists. In your last post you lampooned complementarians for alleged INconsistencies, suggesting that they don't follow their beliefs through completely enough. Today you lampoon complementarians for alleged CONSISTENCIES, suggesting that they DO follow through to actions like having only females present to hear female preaching in preaching lab. One gets the distinct impression that a complementarian can't do a thing right in your eyes.
4. The remainder of my day will be better than its beginning for several reasons, but two that I'll highlight: 1) I have gotten this off of my chest. 2) I'm not coming back here today to read whatever more tripe is served up in this thread.
"Therefore, you, me, Wade and many more must be careful not to fall into the same trap.
It is very possible and just too easy."
CB, If we are on the narrow road being sanctified and led by the Holy Spirit, then over correction in the other direction will not be a problem. That is why I would love to see the convention forgo making rules on these secondary issues and focus on the meat of the Gospel.
Let us focus on not only the Great Commission but to examine ourseleves to make sure we are in the faith, being sanctified and walking in the light.
In any event, I doubt you will see an overcorrection anytime soon. There is now 30 years of intense teaching that women are not really a part of the Holy Priesthood and have an earthly priest between them and their Savior. (Yes, that is what it basically amounts to)
There has been 30 years of books, sermons, seminars and a regiments of young pastors coming out of seminary who love Grumden, Mohler, Moore, Ware and Patterson and revere them as something akin to Popes. They even have websites dedicated to what roles for women are Biblical. Complete with instructions for how a woman can give a man driving directions without seeming to 'teach' him or have authority over him.
There is big money to be made in this issue as I very well know first hand. People love rules, checklists, etc instead of the hard work of an intimate relationship with their Savior. They want to be told what scripture says and what their 'role' is in Christendom so they can check the box and feel like they are being 'good Christians'.
There has been 30 years of focusing on roles instead of the Holy Priesthood and that all believers have anointing.
That is where we are 30 years later.
That is almost a generation.
So when you fear 'overcorrection', tell me, where is this monsterous regiment of women who want to lord it over men? Who are they?
Please understand, I am not trying to be contentious, I am seriously concerned with just how Patriarchal/legalistic we have become. Every single bit of it is taking us AWAY from a focus on our Savior.
It is not stopping. It is getting worse. Not just from Patterson but from Moore and his call for more Patriarchy to Grumden and Ware who teaches that women are made in the indirect image of God to the teaching of the insidious heresy of an eternal sonship as if there is a chain of command structure in the Trinity instead of a united will. All this is being done to try and PROVE a 'natural' authoritarian structure on earth.
It is getting down right scary. And very few seem to see it.
Bryan,
That is my point. Only God can make stretches. He has already done that. His revealed Word is complete. We are not to stretch it.
It is not justifiable when we do.
Therefore, if my comments, your comments, Wade's comments or anyone's comments cannot be justified by the revealed Word we are making an unjustifiable comment which can only be categorized as opinion.
Naturally, any of us who make thinking a habit will have personal opinions. Therefore, we should qualify such statements that cannot be justified by the revealed Word as simply personal opinions.
Bryan, I hope you see my point.
I do hope to visit with you in person one day. Lunch is on me.
Now, it is my "opinion" that I had better hit the street and earn my bread. :-)
cb
David,
You wrote... "I have said there exist three versions of THE Baptist Faith and Message statement--and that each of us affiliating with the SBC should permit all the rest of us to choose the version of the three that he or she states best represents his or her theological persuasions."
I do understand your point. However, my point is that there are NOT 3 BF&M's. There is only 1 BF&M that has been amended twice by the SBC. To say that the BF&M as adopted in 2000 was... "the current version of the document was not adopted by anything like a majority of the SBC" is simply not true.
Here is a link that may help remind you of the facts... http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http://www.sbcannualmeeting.org/sbc00/news.asp?ID=1927611432
Note the title of the article... "Southern Baptists overwhelmingly adopt revised Baptist Faith and Message". The article points out that debate lasted less than an hour, Dr. Rogers was continually interrupted by applause, and that about 90 percent of the messengers in the hall at the time of the vote favored adopting the statement.
If you don't like the revised version of the BF&M just say so, but please stop trying to rewrite history or go back in time. At least Wade acknowledges that he voted for it and the convention is guided by it.
Joe W.
Wade,
If nothing else,…the pulpit thing is weird and comical at the same time. Is that story really true (I mean did Patterson really give that reason for its removal.)?
I witnessed a similar event about 7 years ago in a church where a deacon had made a nice oak pulpit many years before a certain Pastor came to their town. The Pastor, after a little tiff with the deacon had the pulpit removed and replaced it with a nice big white one…..said he needed more space and it was time for the old one to go (I laughed). It is truly sad the pride that wells up in our hearts at times.
I personally carry a pulpit with me in the back of my little Toyota Tacoma truck. It comes in handy. I try not to attach to much sentimentalism to the piece of wood.
Blessings,
Chris
One more before I go,
Lin,
Do you ever simply read and accept a comment at face value without "overcorrecting? :-)
cb
CB,
How could a woman ministering/teaching/preaching in the Body with the power of the Holy Spirit be 'overcorrecting'?
:o)
Les
Please, don't call me dude.
(My son's favorite line in the new movie 21).
:)
Ditto, Sharon. Thanks.
Florence in KY
Bart,
Of all the posts that you and others have written 'invoking my name' (your words), not one time have you ever called and asked 'my permission.'
You don't need to. That's silly. I am writing about the events surrounding the removal of Dr. Bullock. It is documented and true. I would agree that Dr. Bullock is non-confrontational. The post is not about Dr. Bullock. It is about the men who removed her.
I would suggest that you get your ire raised about the poor treatment of our Southern Baptist women who have been educated to do a job and removed for gender reasons.
That is the injustice.
I would write more, but I believe you to be a man of your word and you wouldn't read it since you said you weren't coming back.
:)
Blessings,
Wade
Ranger,
You are correct about Crutchley. Thanks for your comment. His removal as dean of the school of theology was not voluntary, but your comment makes clearer his continued employment at SWBTS after his removal from that position.
The statements about women in the BF&M 2000 were a big deal to many (along with some other statements in it), which is why some have refused to accept it.
The previous BF&M was written by a committee consisting of presidents of the state conventions (if I remember right) - a much more representative body. The 2000 BF&M was written by a handpicked group. Big difference.
Restrictions on women may be secondary or tertiary for men but not for women, especially those called to ministry.
The changes in the SBC have always been about power. And now those who said it was about other things have the power and can do as they please, because enough people believed them when they said it was about other things and they scared people into going along with them and giving them the power they wanted.
Maybe the senior pastor restriction was just to reduce competition for jobs. Anyway, is there such a thing as a junior pastor?
The story about the pulpit would be funny if it didn't show such a sick attitude. It makes me think of the restrictions in Leviticus about touching certain people or things making a person unclean. It seems Jesus didn't let this slow him down when he wanted to help someone, but I guess some are still stuck in this mentality.
Could it be fear that God might use women to make a difference instead of them?
Susie
CB,
You make a good point, but I would remind you that some conservative, evangelical scholars of the infallible, inerrant text - men like Dr. Gordon Fee - do not believe it to be a stretch to say about women what you claim to be a stretch. All I'm saying is that we must all display humility about our ability to be in error in our interpretations of the text that is never in error.
Dear Wade,
I do not know if this post reflects some new awareness of the situation and its implications in the SBC, or if you have held this belief for some period of time, and simply felt (believed, whatever) that the time was not right until now to share it in so public a way. Some of your detractors would no doubt say you are "like an old refrigerator," meaning you cannot keep anything (confidential), but I have long suspected that you knew much more than you were willing to say. Either way however--I commend you for this post.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I will again suggest that we are suffering from a system which has become dysfunctional. It became dysfunctional because the CR was pursued in a dysfunctional fashion (now I will also admit here, that for all I know the SBC was dysfunctional before 1979, but having become a Christian only about that time, I have no personal experience of it). Frankly, I am one of those (and I am still SBC, by the way) who believe that many of the leaders of the CR were more interested in control than anything else, and that theology was a convenient vehicle for control. However, as that implies, it also means some of the CR leaders--and I would say many or most of their "soldiers"--were genuinely concerned with theology. And I mention this only to say that I therefore do not condemn the CR, but only the dysfunctional baggage it brought into the system. Dysfunctionalism can be overcome, but only with deliberation, with resources and energy, and with time. I suggest that being "against" something--in this case the end results of the dysfunction such as this exagerated patriarchy--is not sufficient. If that is the course you adopt, it will only continue the pattern of continual opposition to something, an army forever in search of a new enemy, a new boogeyman. In order to correct the dysfunction, it is necessary to define a positive value or goal. Have you defined what that goal is, at least for yourself?
My prayers are with you, brother. And anything else I can do too.
John Fariss
Wade,
In your article you stated several things about several people. I trust that you did your ground work to cross check the things that you may of heard from secondary sources.
Personally for me the "Bonanza" picture of the SWBTS "elders" in front of the rotunda summed it all up.
Two things I wish were mandetory for all seminary students,pastors, and sbc personel, 1. That they read the children's tale of The Emporer's New Clothes
2.To watch the movie What About Bob?
...from a missionary
"All I'm saying is that we must all display humility about our ability to be in error in our interpretations of the text that is never in error."
I would never hold to a biblical doctrine which I believed might be in error. How foolish!
"Mr. President: I move for the immediate unseating of messengers of all SBC churches which have on staff ordained women, and the immediate dis-fellowshipping of said churches. The Church of Jesus Christ is to be in unity insofar as the Holy Spirit directed interpretation of Scripture. Those who cannot see their way clear to use the Holy Spirit in such matters must be removed from fellowship until such time as they repent from their heretical errors."
~KMC, Pastor, Messenger, DBC
[lol...btw, Wade, each time you expose the actions of your former fellow trustees at the IMB, or each time you attempt to smear Dr. Patterson, you only succeed in showing your immaturity and ignorance on many biblical and ethical matters.]
K Michael
Please please make that motion, and can only pray that the resolutions committe allows it out and let the SBC vote.
I made the same challenge to Vol Fan over on his blog. Bring each and every "Baptist Distinctive" ie narrowing of parameters up, let the SBC vote on them then lets see where we stand. Volfie wont answer my challenge to him, I dont really expect you or him or any of your compadres to actually put your feet to your words...
I have two predictions - 1 - you dont have the courage to actually do it, and 2. The resolutions commitee is too smart to actually let this type of resolution see the light of day.
but I say make those resolutions and lets let the churches decide!
Jim Champion
There appear to be at least several groups in the SBC with differing positions on the issue of gender and ministry.
1. One group believes that whatever the Bible says about this is irrelevant, because Jesus, Paul and the other apostles, their disciples and the church after them were ministering in a male dominated society. The Bible is not inerrant, especially on these matters. (I'm not sure how many folks like this still hang out in the SBC, but I am sure there are a few Baptist Churches that don't have the imagination or leadership to strike out on their own or form a new denomination). I have no sympathy for this group, and don't believe that Wade or most of the people here do either.
2. Another group believes that the Bible is inerrant, but doesn't believe that the Bible says anything that accounts for gender differences in ministry. The references that the church has believed for 1900 years do appear to create gender distinctions, are interpreted, strained and stretched until they almost don't appear in the text. If it was all this clear all along, how come our ancestors missed it for 1900 years? I love this group for the biblical fidelity, but discussing this issue with them is tedious. It's like debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, or whether wine in the Bible is really wine or is it grape juice. The capacity for these folks to debate rivals old time church of christ preachers after 2 Venti espressos at Starbucks. There are a good number of these folks in the SBC. They are the minority, but not so much so that their views are "fringe." This group is probably growing, in my opinion, but not at a break neck pace.
3. Another group holds that there are no gender/ministry distinctions, but admits that there were in NT times, Jesus', Paul's and other's ministries, and the church certainly reflected that. They just don't believe those instructions are mandatory for moving forward. I am actually more sympathetic to this group. They are not into what seem to be modern textual and historical gynastics, but simply make the argument that as culture changes, on non-essential matters, the church should change. (Like head coverings in Corinthians). These folks are nice and usually well-balanced, so long as they do not develop a crusade mentality. Most are not. This view is represented in the SBC, but because of our reverence for the text and the CR battle, I don't think that the views of this group will increase. Their arguments are unfairly categorized in group 1. So, in SBC life, it's better to argue and argue about the text than to make an argument from cultrue.
4. Another group is what may be called the "Pastor Only" group. Women can do anything but be in senior pastoral leadership, or elders (if your church has an elder-led polity). Beyond that, women can do anything - get degrees, teach in church, seminaries, lead in agencies, serve as trustees etc. This group is the most numerous in the SBC in my opinion. There are a lot of variations on this position in many quarters.
5. Then, there's the most restrictive view that would see women as being prohibited from doing many functions in church and denominational life based on the scriptural admonitions. It is this group that Wade is arguing against, I believe. I believe that this group in SBC leadership is larger than in the SBC as a percentage, but not by much. This view is not as big as 4, but probably is second in overall support, but not by a whole lot. This view is popular because the people who hold it can point to the BFM, and say (in some cases) that they are only practically enforcing the BFM. This group is also popular because they are seen as the protectors and guardians of the gains of the CR. People will vote for these folks, especially if these people are attacked by elements that the larger group distrusts.
These are all my opinions, of course. I believe them to be correct, in the main, but I am sure that there are others on this blog who disagree, and can cite good support.
The real questions are (1) How can these groups continue to work together? (will groups 2, 3, and 4 continue to stay in a denomination with a policy that is dominated currently by group 5).
And, (2) How can groups who don't agree with group 5 make changes.
I have some suggestions:
1. Don't tie one's theological position to current events. Many feel that Dr. Klouda was treated wrongfully. Many others feel that Dr. P and SWBTS have been treated wrongfully by being sued and lampooned. I am not arguing for who is right, but I will say that if moving the ball forward on this doctrinal issue is dependent on getting people to sympathize with the positions of one or more litigants, it is more difficult.
2. Don't get too anxious. The SBC is a large ship. You can't steer it in a new direction overnight. This might take 10 years.
3. Don't, don't, don't be ugly or too loud. There is never a time to be ugly. Others may be ugly. Don't respond in kind. Be accurate, fair and kind - even if others are not. The mercurial personalities of the likes of the Sherman brothers, Ken Chaffin and James Dunn, and Dr. Honeycutt's declaration of "Holy War" from the pulpit at Southern and a host of other events did more to bolster the conservatives in the CR than just about anything.
There are times to be loud, but be careful and make sure you have the ears of the people. Rogers and Criswell were respected by an entire generation of SBCers across the country for many years for their faithful biblical exposition. When they got loud, it meant something. They did not make their reputations on controversy.
4. Remember history. Remember that the SBC when through a 20 year fight in the CR. Any new "fight" or initiative needs to consider this. Some people want to fight the CR again. (I know from his posts that Wade does not). Most people in the SBC do NOT want to fight the CR again. Recognize that the BFM changes were part of the CR (even though the Women part was not part of the CR).
5. Start at the local church and build from there. If local churches who believe in ordaining women, in whatever positions, begin to do so, and that continues, there will be a natural constituency for a change. If that does not happen, that may be a true measure of the desire for change at this time.
Trying to force a change from the top down is just more politics. This could be successful, but at a price. I would caution against aggressive political tactics at this time.
Discussing the issue, and seeing local churches act are things that can be done now that could have benefits for the future.
Louis
You said: "In a convention where a macho President can carry shotguns onto the lawn of one of our seminaries and fire rounds at squirrels in trees (as happened last Friday)"
was this reported to the police? it is against the law to possess firearms on campus much less to fire them. i can't remember the penalty but when i go to the library today i will check the sign outside.
a simple student @ swbts
p.s. this is serious. when a person thinks that laws don't apply to them, then things really get scary. i am starting to wonder if the reason why he has drivers is so that he doesn't get speeding tickets.
""Mr. President: I move for the immediate unseating of messengers of all SBC churches which have on staff ordained women, and the immediate dis-fellowshipping of said churches. The Church of Jesus Christ is to be in unity insofar as the Holy Spirit directed interpretation of Scripture. Those who cannot see their way clear to use the Holy Spirit in such matters must be removed from fellowship until such time as they repent from their heretical errors."
~KMC, Pastor, Messenger, DBC"
Well there goes all of our mission efforts in China! I know, I know, what we do in the comfortable, rich USA is so much more important to God and all, so I guess its ok.
You can be the one to deliver the message to the millions of believers risking their lives for their faith overseas that they are now "dis-felloshipped." As for me, I'll just go serve and let God work it out.
Jim Champion,
You are correct in that I will not be making this a motion. For one, I am a messenger of my church. I am not certain they would allow me to make such a motion. (And I would of course seek their permission to do so.) Secondly, I would not submit it as a resolution but as a motion from the floor, which would only have effect for one year, as subsequent Conventions could choose to seat such messengers (?) Lastly, I do not think this is the will of the Convention. And I respect that. But I do feel the Convention is against women as pastors, yet as you say, they are not at the place where they can put "feet to their words." In this regard, the Convention exhibits a wider cooperative spirit than Wade would give them credit.
This whole issue has not reached critical mass in the convention. This issue is a witch hunt against Dr. Patterson, by Wade and Ben.
Ben has an ax to grind, Wade needs a political ladder. Their new collaboration works perfectly for them both. I fear, however, that Emmanuel w