Trifling with Subtleties while Ignoring Certainties: Turning the Gospel into a Gender Gospel

Charles Spurgeon began his message on the text "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22) with an illustration of three fools.

The first fool, Spurgeon said, is the ship's captain who goes below deck during a ferocious storm to read an encyclopedia on the nature of Atlantic winds rather than fighting to keep his ship afloat. 

The second fool is the wounded soldier on the battlefield who asks the arriving medic all kinds of questions about the size, shape, and model of the gun that fired the bullet which wounded the soldier rather than asking the physician if he is able to heal him.

The third fool is the religious person who is constantly arguing the subtle philosophical questions about the origin and nature of evil while ignoring the clear and certain truth that Christ's blood is able to cleanse his sins (Hebrews 9:14). Spurgeon said all three fools have one thing in common: They trifle with subtleties while they ignore certainties.


I would add a fourth person to Spurgeon's list. It is that Christian leader who turns the gospel of Jesus Christ into a gender gospel.

Last week Tim Challies, pastor of Grace Fellowship Church,  wrote a blog entitled Men, Women and the Public Reading of Scripture where he defended his view that only men, and never women, can read Scripture in front of men. Challies' view on this matter is based on what he calls the simple reading of I Timothy 2:11-12. Challies writes:

"It is my conviction that these words (i.e. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" I Tim. 2:11) are meant to be read and understood in the simplest sense. Speaking with God’s authority, Paul is saying that women are not to exercise teaching authority over men. In other words, it is men who are charged with authority in the church and the most important component of this authority is to declare the words of God. Men have been called to exercise headship in the home and in the church while women are called to different and complementary functions."

I am accustomed to reading such nonsensical and isolated interpretations of I Timothy 2:11-12 from fellow Bible-believing pastors and theologians and I disagree sharply with them.

However, I have not written much on the gender issue in recent months, believing as I do that the ungodly emphasis on gender distinctions within the church is destined to fail by virtue of the fact it is so anti-biblical and ultimately anti-Christian. But there was a comment in Challies' blog that caused me to flinch and placed in me a desire to write this post. 

A man in Challies' comment section wrote: God's design is for men to serve and women to receive. The comment sums up quite nicely the teaching of the false gospel that has infected some Bible-believing churches and seminaries. A reader of Dee Parson's and Wanda Martin's Wartburg Watch blog has begun calling it "the gender gospel." 

Even though I may be dangerously close to violating the biblical precept 'answer not a fool in his folly," I feel a rebuttal to Challies' position is needed because there may be few naive and biblically unknowledgeable Christians who believe the teaching that "men are to serve, teach, lead, and women are to receive, listen and follow" is really from God. Nothing could be further from God's eternal truth.  

The Absurdity of Promoting a Gender Gospel

Those who follow Challies' interpretation of I Timothy 2:11-12 are, in Spurgeon's term, "trifling with subtleties while ignoring certainties." The overwhelming New Testament teaching of the Bible regarding men and women in the church is clear and certain--"gender differences are irrelevant in the church of Jesus Christ."

Class 101 in proper hermeneutics teaches that you always interpret difficult or isolated texts based on the certain and plain teachings of the rest of the Bible. God's people in the New Covenant are called to serve based upon the giftings given them by the Holy Spirit. "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17).

 The Apostle Paul says in Galatians 3:27-28 writes:

"All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Paul is emphatic that there is no room in the body of Jesus Christ for racial distinctions, no room for class distinctions, no room for gender distinctions. To forbid a woman to serve, read, lead, or teach (when men are present) is twisting the gospel of freedom in Christ into a gospel of bondage by gender. To restrict a Holy Spirit gifted and empowered woman from edifying other believers through the free exercise of her Spirit given gifts is to resist the Holy Spirit Himself--and qualifies as a very foolish act indeed. What is even more foolish and absurd, at least for Southern Baptists, is the fact that Condoleezza Rice, our 66th United States Secretary of State, spoke to the annual Southern Baptist Convention in 2006.

The audience, predominately Southern Baptist men, stood and applauded when Condoleezza explained how we had bombed the Taliban terrorists in Bora Bora to hell. Thank the Lord she didn't actually read a Scripture text about hell. No telling what the SBC pastors might have done had such a blasphemy occurred in their presence.

An ancient Jewish prayer from the Hebrew Siddur (prayer book) went like this: "Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a Gentile. Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a slave. Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman." "Hashem" was a Jewish name for the one true God, a name used by Jews in the days of Christ.

The same spirit ancient Jews possessed that caused them to believe that only men were created to lead, rule and serve and that women were born to receive, follow and be there for men, is the same spirit now at work in more than a few evangelical leaders. Interestingly, the rise of the Siddur coincides with the glory of God departing the Temple of Jerusalem in the days of Ezekiel (see Ezekiel 10).

Jewish Temple worship continued, but it was during this Spirit-less intertestamental time period that you have the rise of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other male-only Jewish orders that were constantly focusing on male "authority," male "leadership," and male "power." A preoccupation and fixation on authority (whether it be conservative patriarchalism or liberal feminism), is a sign that the Spirit of God has departed. Jesus Christ explicitly forbids any one individual assuming authority over other adults in the Christian community (Matthew 20:20-28).  In fact, after describing the imperialism of political rulers and the authority fixation of religious rulers, Jesus said to his disciples ... "It shall not be so among you" (Matthew 20:28).

I would propose that any portion of the body of Christ that is placing emphasis on male leadership to the exclusion of female leadership (or vice-versa) is void of the Spirit of God.

The New Testament covenant of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ totally turns the world's concept of authority on its ear. The world is concerned about position, power, authority, prestige, control, and ruling over others. Jesus Christ teaches His followers to serve, to love, to express their spiritual gifts to their fullest for the good of others, and to never fear what any person in so-called "authority" can do to them because "All authority ... has been given to Me" (Matthew 28:20). There is to be a mutual equality, respect, and submission within the home between husband and wife (Ephesians 5:21-33).

There is to be a mutual equality, respect and submission of men and women toward one another in the body of Christ based upon the gifts that the Spirit gives to each male and female believer who has been baptized into Christ (Acts 2:15-21; Galatians 3:28). References to the churches' teaching ministry and other gifts are found in Romans 12, I Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4 and not one of those passages excludes females from being recipients of any one of those gifts. Let me say that again in a different way. The gifts of the Spirit are never differentiated on the basis of gender in the New Testament -- ever.

But What About Paul's Teaching in I Timothy 2:11-12?

Any student of the Word who reads Paul's Timothy text and draws a conclusion that is contrary to the clear and certain teaching of the rest of the Bible, including Paul's other writings, is playing the fool by trifling with subtleties while ignoring certainties. "But," you shout, "These two verses tell all women everywhere to be SILENT in the presence of men, and to LEARN in SUBMISSION under them." No, kind sir, they don't. Not even close. Were that the case, these two verses would contradict everything the Apostle Paul has written in Galatians, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians and every other book he contributed to the New Testament, not to mention all the other books written by Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and other early disciples of Christ. I have written a foreword to a book entitled What's With Paul and Women and would encourage you to take an afternoon to read Jon Zen's book, a detailed exposition and exegesis of these two Timothy verses. You will never again resist speaking out when you hear gender gospel preachers resist the Holy Spirit and restrict women in the home or the church by claiming for themselves ungodly positions of power and authority.

One of the advantages of being the pastor of a New Testament church where the Word of God is respected, believed, and practiced is that both men and women lead, serve, teach, and shepherd based upon their gifts. The concept of some raw position of power in "elders" is foreign to the New Testament. The word elder means "older." Look to your elders for wisdom.

The notion of some raw authority in any office of pastor or elder is foreign to the New Testament. Every believer in Christ is a priest.

 There is no need for any other mediator other than Christ. Our church has a Leadership Team composed of both men and women. I am called the Lead Pastor. There is, however, no inherent authority in me. I serve people. I love people. I lead people only if they are willing to follow--and frankly, if I do a poor job of serving and loving, they ought not to follow.

 One of these days the church of Jesus Christ is going to wake up to the fact that we have so twisted and corrupted the concept of authority and leadership that what we have abandoned the clear and certain teachings of the New Testament.

The ancient Jews kept women in the courtyard and placed a fence around the Temple grounds lest a woman feels compelled to enter the Holy Place. The sacred rituals were performed by male priests. The sacred services were led by male priests.

Modern-day conservative evangelicals and liberal feminists have absolutely violated the clear and certain teachings of Jesus Christ and seem to wish to resurrect the Old economy of Temple buildings, gender priesthoods, and religious rituals. Jesus abolished all that Old economy stuff in the New agreement. The Temple of God is no longer a building, it is the soul of a believer (see I Corinthians 6:19). The priests of God are no longer just male, they are both male and female (see Galatians 3:28). The rituals of God are no longer holy days, sacrifices, and feasts, but faith in Christ and love for God and our fellow man (see Colossians 2:16; John 13:3).

The body of Jesus Christ is to make no distinctions in race, class, and gender. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel that sets the captives free to serve as the Holy Spirit gifts. To revoke the privilege of a gifted, believing woman from reading Scripture to men is to violate the clear and certain teaching of the New Testament and risk having the legalism and religious ritualism of Spirit-less religion that marked Temple worship after the days of Ezekiel and before the launch of the New Covenant. If conservative, Bible-believing, Christ-loving, Spirit-filled, graced people do not speak out when our conservative brothers move into error on this issue, then we become enablers of God's people as they turn the powerful gospel of grace into an impotent gospel of gender. God forbid that we continue to trifle with subtleties while we ignore certainties.

Wade Burleson

P.S. It was my wife's and my privilege to meet these past few days with a couple of remarkable Christian women. Dee and Wanda of Wartburg Watch are from North Carolina. Wanda is graduated from Duke University with an English degree and Dee is a registered nurse. Both women also have an M.B.A. They are both married and have delightful adult children. Rachelle and I were thrilled to be able to spend some time with them. More than a few pastors and Christian leaders ought to listen to what they are saying.

The Church Is Changing - A Reformation of the Church Based on the Truth of Scripture

For many centuries established Christian churches have attempted to assume the status and function of ancient Israel's Temple worship. From massive buildings erected to inspire, to stained glass windows or elaborate decor intended to tell stories, from the priesthood of authoritative pastors/leaders who separate themselves from 'laity,' to injunctions to tithe into the storehouse of the church or risk being devoured by the devil, the modern church looks more like Old Testament Israel than early followers of Christ. The crystallization of the institutional church into Jewish modes of worship is not limited to Roman Catholicism or even unorthodox Mormonism. Baptist churches, though shouting loudly 'no creed but the Bible,' have ignored the New Testament teaching on the nature of the true church and have replicated Israel's hierarchy of priestly authority (pastors), Israel's emphasis on worship at a specific place (the sanctuary), and Israel's obligation to an 'if-then' covenant with God ('if we will obey God, then God will bless us'). The freedom of a sinner who personally, intimately and spiritually trusts Christ and experiences the power of God at work within is substituted for a form of behavioral control imposed by a spiritual authoritarian (usually a pastor) who uses Old Testament passages of Scripture to bind believers. The pastor who operates in this manner may not realize that God abolished the Old Covenant system of worship and that the early Christians were known for their radical departure from dependence on a worship place, authoritarian priests, and any religious performance through ceremony, holy days or sacrifical 'offerings.'  As Adolph Safir reminds us in his brilliant work on Hebrews: “The Greeks and the Romans were not merely astonished at, but felt irritated by the worship of the early Christians, who without image and altar, without priests and vestments, appeared to them as atheists, men and women ‘without gods’ and at times felt threated by the mysterious power Christians possessed as they rejoiced in suffering and met with calm courage the tortures of death itself” Adolph Saphir.

The simplicity of New Covenant worship 'in spirit and in truth' has been overwhelmed by the desires and the demands of leaders within the institutional church. We pastors, often in an attempt to protect our jobs and salaries (or future job and salary), spiritualize everything about the church. Mega-church pastors are often the worst because the financial needs are the greatest. Tom Rainer's recent poll of Southern Baptist churches in Oklahoma reveals Emmanuel Enid, the church I pastor, is the third largest Southern Baptist church in the Oklahoma in terms of attendance. The greatest danger I face at Emmanuel is the temptation to forget that what is done at the building on Sundays and Wednesdays is just a part--a small part--of who we are as a people. Whether it is giving, serving, or attending other places of worship, our people should have the liberty and freedom to give, serve, and attend where the Spirit leads. On Sunday at 12:00 noon. the church leaves the building, and whatever I do Sunday morning or Wednesday night should be designed to empower and encourage believers to worship in spirit and truth every day of the week. My job, in the role our church consitution calls "the lead pastor," is to lead people in such a manner that they cheerfully give to the Lord through Emmanuel, joyfully serve the Lord through Emmanuel, and willingly worship the Lord by attending corporate worship services at Emmanuel. However, a good lead pastor will always remind God's people that His church extends far beyond the membership rolls of any one church, and worship, giving and serving in other places is just as biblically sound and Spirit-led as that which is done through Emmanuel.

If the Spirit leads our people to give less, attend less, and serve less at Emmanuel, then our budget, our ministries, and our organizational mission efforts will shrink. If the Spirit leads our people to give more, attend more, and serve more, then our organizational ministries will expand. Regardless, the New Testament is quite clear that our church is NOT a new Temple, our pastors are NOT a new priesthood, and our religious activities are NOT prescribed by any law. God's people should give, should serve and should worship as the Spirit leads, where the Spirit leads, and as long as the Spirit leads. It is not the Law that constrains us but the Spirit who compels us. Unfortunately, many modern Baptist churches have taken promises and laws of the Old Testament and attempted to force them into the New Covenant church. The result is a dysfunctional gathering of law worshippers who are more concerned with conformity than a gathering of strong, individual believers who are empowered by the Spirit. I can almost hear objections from some pastors who say, "But the Word of God prescribes bringing the tithe into the storehouse! The Word of God demands that God's people 'touch not the anointed' in the church! The Word of God dictates everything we do at our church!" My response is simple: Which portion of the Word? The Word pertaining to Israel in the Old Covenant or the Scriptures pertaining to followers of Christ in the New Covenant? Read carefully the following verse in Hebrews 8:13:

"When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."

The book of Hebrews was written around AD 65, thirty five years after the death of Christ. The writer of Hebrews says in this verse that God’s old agreement with Israel was made obsolete by God, is growing old and will shortly be abolished (disappear). The old agreement God had with Israel is called "The Old Covenant" and it is found within the Old Testament. Old Covenant worship revolved around the Tabernacle/Temple, the priesthood, and the festivals and sacrificial rituals (collectively called "The Law" in the OT).  The Law was an "if/then" agreement where God promised to Israel His blessings "if" Israel obeyed the Law. The writer of Hebrews tells us three explicit things about this Old Covenant and the "if/then" promises of God that came with it.  (1). The Old Covenant has been made obsolete.' (2). It is 'growing old,' and (3). It will soon be abolished. This biblical truth leads us to ask three questions:

When did God’s covenant with Israel become obsolete?   In AD 30 Jesus the Anointed One died on a hill called Golgatha. The night before He was crucified He took a cup of wine and declared, "This cup is New Covenant of my blood shed for the remission of your sins." The next day, on the cross,  Jesus cried “It is finished!” Everything about the Old Covenant-- all the laws, the rituals, the sacrifices and the types--were all fulfilled in Christ. The Old Covenant had served its purpose (as a schoolmaster that points the sinner to Christ) and is now fulfilled. God made it obsolete in the death/burial/resurrection of Christ. Just like your old television set is made obsolete by the new wave of communication called HDTV, so too, the old pattern of worship in ancient Israel was made obsolete by the new pattern of worship opened up at the cross. The veil was ripped, so the sinner has direct access to God through Christ. And the good news about this new way is that the sinner who comes to God by Christ is guaranteed that he will 'never be cut off from the goodness of God' (Hebrews 7:25). No longer is worship about Temples, priests and rituals. In the New Covenant, those who truly worship God worship Him in "spirit and truth" (John 3:23).

When did God’s covenant with Israel grow old? For forty years (a Jewish ‘generation’) after the cross, from AD 30 to AD 70, the Temple remained standing.  For those forty years the early followers of Jesus Christ came to the Temple to pray, worship, and proclaim the new way to God through faith in Jesus Christ. It was on the steps of the Temple that Peter healed the lame man by saying, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I to you. In the name of Jesus Christ arise and walk." The disciples preached Christ in and around the Temple grounds, but the Old Covenant Temple way of worship was 'growing old.' So too, when the Apostle Paul was converted on the road to Damascus, he eventually came back to Jerusalem and Acts 9 says he "preached Christ boldly at the Temple." The Jews were so furious with this former Old Covenant Hebrew who now advocated the new way to approach God that they sought to have him killed,. The disciples thwarted the Jews plan for Paul by secretly escorting the Apostle out of Jersualem for his own safety. Old Covenant worship was growing old. The phrase 'growing old' must be interpreted within the context and time of the writer of Hebrews. He was living in the mid-60's AD, and for over three decades since the death of Christ, Temple worship among the Jews continued --but it was growing old and would "soon disappear" (be abolished).

When was God’s covenant with Israel abolished? In AD 70 God used the Roman army to utterly destroy the Temple. Just as Jesus prophesied forty years earlier (Matthew 24), the Romans did not leave one stone standing upon another. This destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the Old Covenant way of worship was prophesied by the prophets and Jesus for centuries. Israel had been unfaithful to the covenant they had with God, and God therefore abolished it and instituted a new covenant. Again, it is not as if there was no good purpose for the Old Covenant. If it were not for the Law (the biblical way of describing the Old Covenant), Paul would not have known sin. The Law acted as a mirror, reflecting back to the Hebrews their sinfulness and God's holiness. In addition, the Law, particularly through its festivals, rituals and symbols, portrayed a coming Anointed One (Messiah) who Himself would take away the sins of the world. When the Messiah came and fulfilled the Law, the Old Covenant was made obsolete by God, grew old in time, and was eventually abolished (disappeared) in AD 70.  The Temple was gone.

The dwelling place of God in the new agreement that He has made with sinners, called the New Covenant, is the life of the individual believer. It is the life of God in the soul of man that is the true miracle of the New Covenant. The power of the Spirit of God changes the sinner from the inside/out. We are the Temple of the Living God. For this reason, any institutional church that tries to substitute itself as the old Temple, its pastors/priests as the Old priesthood, and operate by Old Testament "if/then" principles and promises, is denying the truth of the New Testament.

The New Covenant changes the way we worship God every day of our lives. The Old Covenant agreement between God and Israel was a come see religion. Come see the Temple. Come see the rituals. Come see the festivals.  The New Covenant is a go tell religion. Go tell sinners of the Savior who has guaranteed the Creator’s goodness to those who trust Him. Christianity is radically spiritual, internal, personal, and trans-cultural (all people). Some of the best worship you can have is with family or a small group of believers around a camp fire at a lake, or at home around the dinner table, or at a backyard barb-e-que. Believers are the church. God dwells in us. Where we are, there He is. We don't behave one way 'at church' and another way everywhere else. We can't do this because we ARE the church. Further, since the life of God is in the invidual sinner who trusts Christ, there is no hierarchical authority in the church. Every believer is a priest unto God.

The New Covenant changes the way we apply Scriptures from the Old Testament. The “If … then” Scriptures are seen as part of God’s promises to the people of Israel. Let me give you three examples of “if/then” promises that Christian people use wrongly.

(Example 1): If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek  my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (II Chronicles 7:14). That is a great Old Covenant promise. Israel often failed this condition of humble repentance, and as a result, they were often taken captive by foreigners and there land was destroyed. This verse, often quoted by Christians, is not a New Covenant promise.

In the New Covenant God says that He "is able to do far more abundantly beyond all we even ask or think, according to the power that works within us" (Eph. 3:20). Here is the New Covenant promise. When you come to God by faith in Christ, God resides within you and has begun a work in you that He will carry to completion. Do you find yourself pulled toward addictive sins as a believer? He will eventually break you of them for your good and for His glory. The alcoholic who comes to God by faith in Christ need not worry that a relapse into drunkenness will cause the favor and goodness of God to withdraw from Him. In the old agreement he would have worried, because in the old agreement it was his obedience that ensured God's goodness, but in the New Covenant it is God's goodness to Him in Christ that ensures the sinners' eventual obedience. God is conforming, and He will continue to conform, every sinner who trusts Christ into the image of His Son. It is a guarantee dependent upon His fidelity and strength not your own.

(Example 2)“If you bring the tithe … then I will rebuke the devourer for you” (Malachi 3:10).

This is an often quoted Old Covenant promise by pastors, used as an enticement (and/or threat) for the New Testament believer to give to his or her local church. This promise, given to Old Covenant Israel, is another if/then promise. The rebuke of the devourer is given IF Israel brings their tithes to the Temple. If the people of Israel do not bring their tithe to the Temple, then the devourer is free to reign and destory their possessions.

In the New Covenant, Jesus died and in His death He “destroyed the devil” (Hebrews 2:14). In the New Covenant, the devil will seek to devour you as a 'roaring lion,' but as Bunyan so eloquently pictured in Pilgrim's Progress, the lion is chained. Naturalists also tell us that only teethless lions roar. The truth of the New Testament is quite clear. The "strong man" (Satan) who was once at peace in his home (your life) and was well armed, was disarmed and dislodged by One "stronger than he" (Jesus Christ) who has now taken up residence within you (Luke 11:21-22). As a New Covenant believer in Christ you don't give money to your local church in order for God to rebuke the devourer. Malachi 3:10 is an Old Covenant promise. The devourer is already REMOVED from your life. Jesus is now your Lord. You give as you follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The more you comprehend the work of Christ on your behalf the more you cheerfully give, the more you joyfully serve, and the more you radically worship! In other words, in the New Covenant, giving is a matter of the heart, not the Law. As the Spirit leads you to give to ministries that proclaim the good news of Christ, care for the needs of fellow man, and work hard to do kingdom work--then give!

(Example 3): “If you call upon me in the day of trouble; then I will deliver you” (Psalm 50:15).

Again, that is a great Old Covenant promise, but it is nowhere close to the incredible truth of the New Covenant Scriptures. In the New Covenant, God delivers His people even when they find themselves emotionally, spiritually and personally “dead in our trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). His amazing and agressive love for His people through Christ ensures that He will "never, no never, no never" (five negatives in the original) leave us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5). It is interesting that in the first portion of Hebrews 13:5 says that we should have "the kind of character that is free from the love of money BECAUSE God will never leave us or forsake." We  do not live this way IN ORDER for  God to never leave us or forsake us. Words are important. In the New Covenant our lives are a response to God's goodness to us in Christ. In the Old Covenant, people lived their lives in order to obtain God's goodness. If you ever find yourself being motivated to do something in order to get God to do something in return, you are living under the principles of the Old Covenant. Unfortunately, the Old Covenant, and Old Covenant churches, and Old Covenant promises will always let you down. However, the new agreement that God has with sinners will never let you down. "He is able to save forever  (i.e. guarantee that they will never be cut off from God's goodness) those who draw near to God through Him” (Hebrews 7:25). 

The church is changing. There is a reformation taking place. The church has left the building(s). And any pastor who tries to reinvigorate the institutional church through Old Covenant principles is destined to fail.

What Gulf Hurricanes May One Day Teach Southern Baptists About the Subtle But Significant Changes Occuring in SBC Polity

Southern Baptists historically have believed in and defended the autonomy of the local church, the independence of Southern Baptist agencies from one another, and the grassroots power held by Southern Baptists at large. Some conservative Southern Baptist leaders, joining other mainlain demoninations, act as if autonomy is madness. From our beginnings, Southern Baptists have differed from other denominations in polity and governance in that we have never had a system of top/down authority where an ecclesiastical head, synod, or other "authoritative" body could ever instruct, demand or otherwise control any Southern Baptist entity or church. But that seems to be changing.

Historically, boards of trustees govern Southern Baptist entitities and congregations are the highest authority in the church. Autonomous Southern Baptist churches choose to cooperate on missions and evangelism around the world, and elect trustees who govern our Convention's agencies. If a Southern Baptist agency becomes askew and needs correction, then individual trustees must do what they can to correct the problem. Then, if the problem is not corrected, the Southern Baptist Convention must replace trustees with those who will reflect the mind and heart of the highest authority in the Southern Baptist Convention - the local churches that compose our Convention. If and when there comes a time or occasion that the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole violates an inviolable (sacred) Baptist principle, then the only alternative for the Baptist who disagrees is to leave the Southern Baptist Convention. For this reason, our Convention, that is our local, autonomous churches who form the Southern Baptist Convention, should be very cautious about adopting any motion that takes "authority" away from autonomous churches and places it in the hands of a a few.

Concerns over "Liberalism" Brings the Loss of Autonomy

Concerns over "liberal" moves among Southern Baptist agencies have led our Convention to adopt a centralized form of control that seems to be destroying the fabric of Southern Baptist polity as we once knew it. Demands that Southern Baptist churches, pastors, trustees "conform" to doctrinal decrees issued from the top down has more in common to Roman Catholic papal bulls than the historic practice of autonomous Baptist churches issuing individual church confessions and cooperating in missions with other autonomuos Baptist churches around a basic confession of faith that left off tertiary doctrines. That's not to say tertiary doctrines are not important to local churches. Rather, to preserve the polity of individual autonomous churches and the spirit of cooperation in mission tasks, Southern Baptists have historically resisted the move toward a centralized hierachial authority on matters of doctrine. This centralized demand for "doctrinal conformity" began with the President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998 appointing a Baptist Faith and Message that reflected a "conservative" viewpoint on doctrinal matters historically absent from Baptist Confessions. At the time I was bothered by this demand for doctrinal conformity, but said little because of my personal agreement with the doctrine. What bothered me was the forced separation from those who disagreed by using the document as a club of accountability against autonomous churches. That seemed to me, again, to be more Roman Catholic in polity than Baptist.

But in recent months, I have seen how the "centralized authority" of Southern Baptists has become far more dangerous. Recent doctrinal "bulls" on issues such as closed communion, the cessation of spiritual gifts, the authority of the baptizer, the prohibition of women teaching men, and other such "doctrines" which go even beyond the 2000 BFM are being forced on cooperating Southern Baptist churches by Southern Baptist trustee boards at the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, and some of our Southern Baptist seminaries. The rationale of these trustees is that they are the "authority" on such matters, and the decisions of individual, autonomous Southern Baptist churches have no merit.

Southern Baptists in the pew don't seem to really care about historic Baptist polity when it comes to doctrinal matters. But, one of these days, a hurricane in Gulf may wake us all up.

Sole Membership

In 2005 the Southern Baptist Convention approved a recommendation called "sole membership." Sole membership grants legal ownership of every Southern Baptist agency to the Southern Baptist Convention. As explained by the Convention's attorneys at the time, sole membership, gives to the Southern Baptist Convention "the right to approve charter amendment, and to approve the dissolution, merger, or sale of the institution. This sounds really good - if the Convention as a whole makes those decisions. But in reality, the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist acts "as the Convention between Conventions," and decisions can be made by the Executive Committee without full Convention approval. This works fine and dandy when the Executive Committee takes actions respectful of, and consistent with, Baptist principles and Convention wishes, and when the Executive Committee is composed of men and women who understand the importance of local church and agency autonomy (as it does now). But we have seen at the International Mission Board what happens when an individual board of trustees acts without Convention approval and inverts historic Baptist polity by declaring they have "authority" over local Southern Baptist churches.

God forbid that the spirit of the SBC Executive Committee ever becomes like the spirit of some of the leaders on the 2005 International Mission Board regarding "authority" in the SBC. Church autonomy meant nothing to them. Local church authority was insignificant. "We" have the truth, and you better follow "us" or you are not a real Southern Baptist and cannot cooperate in Southern Baptist missions. In a similar manner, there were a few SBC agency heads and trustees who complained during the "sole membership" debate that the Executive Committee was taking over "their" authority as independent, autonomous Southern Baptist boards and agencies. In my opinion, they were right. BUT, the EC may have learned it from agency boards who have been doing the same thing to local churches.

Prior to 2005, for any Southern Baptist entitity to be dissolved, merged, or sold, it required agency trustee approval. The only "control" the Southern Baptist Convention had over individual agencies prior to the 2005 "sole membership" vote was the appointment of agency trustees. This, however, did not seem enough to some conservative Southern Baptist leaders. Afraid of the actions of rogue Baptist trustee boards, the Southern Baptist Convention pressed for "sole membership." The cause for concern included Baptist agencies in Texas, including Baylor trustees who voted to cut ties with the Convention. Likewise, in Missouri, five Baptist agencies separated from the Missouri Baptist Convention.

Concerns over "liberal" moves among Southern Baptist agencies have led our Convention to adopt a centralized form of control that may one day, in practice, destroy the fabric of Southern Baptist polity as we once knew it. Dr. Chuck Kelley, pictured here signing the documents handing over the assets of NOBTS to the SBC Executive Committee (Update: please see Augie Boto's comments after this post where he states my conclusions in this paragraph and the next three are erroneous), vigorously opposed "sole membership" because he knew the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention could one day close New Orleans Seminary, sell the assets, and the trustees of New Orleans Theological Seminary would have no say in the matter. Dr. Kelley said during the debate over "sole membership."

Sole membership is a step toward the centralization of control authority," Kelley said. "It is not the size of the step but the direction of the step which causes our concern."

He pointed to a story the seminary submitted to Baptist Press, in which Kelley said BP "refused to print a brief statement from the trustees ... explaining to Southern Baptists why they did not want to do sole membership."

"Whatever you think about this issue, denying a messenger-elected board of conservative trustees the opportunity to communicate with Southern Baptist Convention

I sympathize with Dr. Kelley. If hurricane Gustav had destroyed New Orleans, or if hurricane Hannah turns west and brings flooding to New Orleans, or if another future hurricane brings devastation to the city which hosts New Orleans Theological Seminary, the Executive Committee in Nashville, Tennessee, NOT the board of directors of NOTBS, could vote to sell, merge or otherwise close the New Orleans Theological Seminary - without the seminary's trustees approval, OR Southern Baptist Convention approval. Attorneys for the Executive Committee would argue that the Executive Committee IS the Convention between Conventions, and legally, they would be right. But it is really dangerous when just a few men control entire Conventions or autonomous churches by their personal whims or feelings. One day the Executive Committee just up and get tired of rebuilding New Orleans Seminary (as some IMB trustees seemed to tire of missionaries who prayed in tongues), and they very well might shut it down. The New Orleans President and NOBTS trustees may wake up one day and wondered what happened to their seminary. Where did "their authority" in answering the question of whether or not New Orleans Seminary should remain open go? They might just feel a little like what an autonomous Southern Baptist church feels when a Southern Baptist agency forbids to appoint a missionary candidate whose baptism by immersion, which the church accepted, has been rejected. The missionary candidate's baptism, which meets the qualifications of the concensus doctrinal statement of the Convention (the 2000 BFM) - but doesn't meet the personal doctrinal whims of IMB trustees. The Board of Trustees of the IMB just might justify their actions by saying, "We are a higher authority than the local church and we don't have to accept the missionary's baptism if we don't want to accept it."

When those kinds of twisted, distorted views of authority are allowed to stand, then we are all in trouble as a Convention.

As much as I dislike saying it, it might take a hurricane for Southern Baptists to finally realize that the historic principle of Baptist autonomy is in danger. If demands for doctrinal conformity on matters non-essential to the gospel don't wake up the Southern Baptist congregations, maybe a decision to close a Southern Baptist seminary, bypassing the authority of the seminary's own board of trustees will wake us up.

Then, again, maybe not. If people don't care about the authority of a local church, the HIGHEST authority in our Convention, why should they ever care about an agency who has lesser historic Baptist authority? Or, even worse, it could be that Southern Baptists have no concept of local church authority and autonomy and how authority flows up, not down.

I sometimes wonder if modern Southern Baptists even care about historic Baptist principles such as local church authority and congregational autonomy. I won't, however, stop trying to make my fellow Southern Baptists care.

In His Grace,

Wade

Homosexuality, Adultery, Sexual Immorality, a Woman Preaching Christ; Grave Moral Concerns

Irving Bible Church, Irving, Texas, 2008

This past Sunday, as reported by Sam Hodges of The Dallas Morning News, Mrs. Jackie Roese preached the Sunday morning message to the 3,500 people who attended the Irving Bible Church. Jackie preached, according to Executive Pastor Steve Roese (who is also Jackie's husband) "under the authority of an elder board that will continue to be all male."

Elders of Irving Bible Church spent 18 months studying the question of women in ministry, including whether women should be allowed to preach. Their key conclusions were:

(1). The accounts of creation and the fall (Genesis 1-3) reveal a fundamental equality between men and women.
(2). Women exercised significant ministry roles of teaching and leading with God's blessing in both the Old and New Testaments.
(3). Though the role of women was historically limited, the progress of revelation indicates an ethic in progress leading to full freedom for women to exercise their giftedness in the local church.
(4). Key New Testament passages restricting women's roles were culturally and historically specific, not universal principles for all time and places.
(5). Though women are free to use all of their giftedness in teaching and leading the church, the role of elder seems to be biblically relegated to men.

This last point, number five, is precisely what the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message states in Article VI on the church; "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." Conclusions 1-4 are interpretations of the elders of the Irving Bible Church, supported by a 24 page White Paper that is linked on the front page of the church's website. Through their interpretation of the infallible text, and after identifying the particular giftedness for teaching possessed by Mrs. Roese, the elders requested she teach during the Sunday morning worship service.

The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, stated that Irving Bible's Church decision to have the Executive Pastor's wife preach last Sunday morning was "a matter of grave moral concern." The Council, including Southern Baptists Paige and Dorothy Patterson, Al Mohler, Bruce Ware and others plan to publicly express their "moral" concerns over what happened at Irving Bible Church last Sunday. Tom Nelson, pastor of a neighboring Bible church to Irving's Bible Church, expressed the sentiments of the Council when he stated to the Dallas Morning News, "I believe this issue is the carrier of a virus by which liberalism will enter the evangelical church. [Since she was allowed to preach], then maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue."

Some days I really wonder if God intentionally made us who are conservative evangelicals mentally dull. To be a trophy of grace means you have to be in need of His favor, and maybe that from which we need to be rescued is moral stupidity. Let me show you what I mean.

(1). Irving Bible Church is a conservative, evangelical church that believes the Bible - as evidenced by their White Paper. Their conclusions on women's ministry in the church parallel EXACTLY those of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.
(2). On secondary issues, such as whether or not a woman can preach or teach in the congregation under the authority of male elders (and in Irving Bible's case, the woman's husband), the Irving Bible Church says the Bible allows it. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says the Bible does not allow it. Fine. There is disagreement.
(3). But those fellow conservatives who disagree with Irving Bible Church's conclusions, including the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, have called the decision of Irving Bible concern "a matter of grave moral concern."
(4). Irving Bible Church and her godly, Bible believing elders are now being compared to people who condone sodomy, adultery, and sexual immoral activity - all because a woman who believes in the inerrant, infallible Word of God, preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to sinners in need of a Savior. Ugh.

Folks, this is precisely what is happening in the Southern Baptist Convention. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message forbids a woman from serving as Senior Pastor. But a small, select group of SBC leaders are seeking to force an interpretation of the Bible that goes well BEYOND the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message on ALL Southern Baptists. Women, say these leaders, cannot teach the Bible (or Hebrew) to men; women can't lead men on the mission field by being in a position of "authority" over men (and thus women are being removed from administrative positions in the IMB); no Southern Baptist woman can serve as a hospital, business, or military chaplain; and no woman can "preach" the gospel in a local church (without risk of being placed in the category of "moral concerns") - even though EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES is not addressed by the 2000 BFM!

Southern Baptist women should work at home, teach the kids, do the dishes, and for HEAVEN'S SAKE, never, ever think about teaching a man anything about the Bible! That is, unless your name is Beth Moore and you pull in $750,000 an event for LifeWay at rallies and Bible studies across the nation attended by both men and women.

I personally agree with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message on male eldership (pastors), and our pastoral staff at Emmanuel has eight men in that role. So does Irving Bible Church. Why, then the name calling? I shiver when I hear my fellow evangelicals call a church that asks a woman to preach the gospel on Sunday morning a church of "grave moral concern." WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT FEMALE PASTORS!

That my friends, is an illustration of what I see happening in the SBC. We have been told cooperation is around affirmation of the 2000 BFM, but a select group of leaders have narrowed the doctrinal parameters of cooperation by forcing conformity of belief on doctrines that FAR EXCEED the 2000 BFM.

Somebody has got to stand up and say enough.

Divine Authority Is Never Office or Gender Based

The unbiblical Southern Baptist thinking in some quarters regarding 'authority,' 'ordination,' and 'women in ministry' is both profound and dangerous in terms of the advancement of God's Kingdom.

Rather than acknowledging that authority flows from Christ and that the power of Christ to minister and serve is dispensed through the Spirit gifting believers as God sees fit, the Southern Baptist Convention is looking remarkably more and more like the Roman Catholic Church.

 In Roman Catholicism, the church possesses all authority on earth, the Pope decrees authoritative bulls, and a hierarchy of authority flows down from the Pope to the parish priests who are the sole authority in their respective congregations. This teaching is absolutely contrary to the Bible.

According to Scripture, there is only One head of the Church or local churches and all authority is His, given to Him by God the Father. For a man or woman in the church to possess any authority, it must come from Christ directly. Christ's authority is not dispensed by the church's bestowal of any office, but by the Spirit who dispenses spiritual gifts that empower the believer to serve others in the power of Christ. In short, the authority of Christ in the world is always evidenced by service, for He said:

"The greatest among you shall be your servant." (Matthew 23:11)

When the church recognizes the gifts of the Spirit in a person that enables and compels them to serve the body of Christ or the world in general, then the church sets that person aside for particular service by the laying on of hands. This setting aside for the purpose of service or ministry within the church (teaching, shepherding, serving), or sometimes in the world (evangelizing, missions, etc . . . ) is simply the Body's recognition that Christ's power has already been bestowed through the dispensing of unique spiritual gifts.

Unfortunately, many in the evangelical church have succumbed to the error of the Roman Catholic Church by calling this setting aside of God's servants 'ordination' and assume that 'ordination' bestows some magical power or authority. This so-called power, according to those Southern Baptists who hold to this belief, is always assigned to an 'office' that has been reached via the ordination. Accordingly, only those set aside by the church to this office have the authority they need to minister or serve others.

So, according to this very unbiblical and narrow ecclesiological thinking of some in the Southern Baptist Convention, only ordained pastors have the authority to do pastoral ministry. To me, the problem in the Southern Baptist Convention is not the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message prohibition that women cannot hold the 'office' of Senior Pastor, but rather, the underlying problem in our Convention is that those who pushed for the prohibition have the belief that the only people who have 'authority' to minister in the church are those who have been given an 'office' of authority by the church.

Thus, any woman who even begins to even approach ministry that looks like the ministry of one who holds 'the office of pastor' is being personally shamed, or publicly removed from positions of service.

Flowing from this fraudulent authority that has infected the thinking of Southern Baptists are some very strange practices:

No missionary has the 'authority' to baptize except those who occupy an 'office' of spiritual authority via ordination.
No believer has the 'authority' to dispense the Lord's Supper except those who occupy an "office" of spriitual authority via ordination.
Nobody has the 'authority' to teach the Bible to men in the church or at seminary except for those who occupy an 'office' of spiritual authority via ordination.
No chaplain has the 'authority' to minister to people but those who occupy an 'office' of spiritual authority via ordination. 

We've created artificial offices of spiritual authority that are anti-New Testament, pagan in origin, and detrimental to the church.

Nowhere in Scripture is this idea of a mystical 'office' of authority taught.

Let me repeat. Nowhere in the inspired, infallible, sufficient Word of God is the idea taught that the power or authority to minister or serve is associated with an office that is received through ordination. 

The prerogative to bestow authority is Christ's alone; the Church's responsibility is to recognize that authority which Christ has bestowed by observing the unique gifts, service and calling to the minister that is being exhibited in the believer.

The Biblical Teaching Regarding Authority and Service

If a man or woman within a local church were to ever assume authority because of his or her position granted by the church then Christ's authority is being usurped (Ephesians 4:5,15).

 A believer should concern himself with serving, and never be concerned with 'authority.'

Likewise, if a church or convention were to ever begin believing that a person automatically possessed authority because of a position that the church bestowed, then there is the danger of missing out on thrills and joys of seeing God's kingdom expanded on earth because we begin to exclude or discount the ministries of God-called and Spirit-gifted women from serving or ministering to people because they don't hold 'the office' (i.e. 'they haven't been ordained'). L

et me show you how the New Testament never put an emphasis on any mystical 'office,' but called the church to recognize the gifts, callings, and ministries of people that God had added to the church.

The New Covenant people of God are particularly bound to the New Covenant (Testament) writings since the Old Covenant has been fulfilled by Christ and done away with (Hebrews 1:2, Acts 18:28).

For those who struggle with the phrase 'done away with,' the New Testament uses even sharper language like 'abolished.' This is why we do not offer sacrifices, celebrate the seven Jewish festivals, follow the Jewish dietary laws, etc.

Whereas in the Old Covenant you had it made if you were an old, Jewish male holding the office of priest or king (which was a legitimate office), in the New Covenant, all believers in Christ - both male and female, young and old, rich and poor, Greek and Jew - are priests and kings (co-heirs with Christ). Christ, our Head, is the King of kings; we are His Body.

New Covenant believers are responsible to the Head individually, but we also have a responsibility to fulfill in terms of each other (Rom. 14:4, Eph. 5:21). All believers, not just men, are priests and servants of God. All believers, not just men, are gifted by God. All believers, not just men, are under the authority of the Head of the Body, Jesus Christ. Therefore we must all take our place among the Body to minister according to the gifts He has given us for the good of us all (1 Corinthians 12-14). It is God who gives us believers spiritual gifts to minister, and it is Christ the Head to whom we answer in the use of those gifts.

There are certain members of the body, both men and women, who become a gift to the body of Christ in unique ways. God has gifted and given these people to the body for the purpose of equipping all the members of the church for ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12). When the New Testament describes these individuals, no emphasis is placed on any "authority" they possess that is derived from any "office" they hold. Rather, the people of God in the church have observed the Kingdom advanced through the servant leadership of those gifted individuals. It is not the 'office' that bestows any power, but Christ who empowers the servant leadership.

Part of the confusion in the minds of some Southern Baptists over this issue may arise from the King James Version translating the word 'diakonia' in Romans 11:13 with the word 'office.' Unfortunately, the KJV translation is a poor one, simply because 'diakonia' means "service or ministry."

This is important. So, let me show you again the difference between a service and an office, and why authority arises from service and not an office. When Paul, a Jew, desired for the Gentiles to listen to his teaching, he reminds them of his ministry or service to them - not any imagined office of authority. The King James Version of Romans 11:13 reads:

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office

Some Southern Baptists read this and think that there is something about this mystical office Paul holds that gives him authority - and they ought to listen. For this reason, many Southern Baptist pastors put the emphasis on the 'office' of a pastor, and tell their congregations that they must listen to them because of the office their pastor, which gives him 'authority' over them.

But that is NOT what Paul is saying in the text. Paul is reminding the Gentiles that his message ought to be heeded because of his ministry and service among them. Under great persecution, with nothing to personally gain, this Jewish man named Paul put his life on the line at the hands of his own people (the Jews) in order to serve and minister to the Gentiles. The English Standard Version translates Romans 11:13 this way:

I am speaking to you Gentiles, inasmuch as (I have been sent) to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry (to you).

While it is true that in the Old Covenant, the concept of 'the office' of the priest is a position of authority, in the New Covenant Scriptures, the words that would imply some kind of official "office" are never used. For instance, in Romans 12:4 the King James poorly translates the Greek word "praxis" this way:

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office.

The Greek word praxis nowhere means 'office,' but rather speaks of or one's action or function. The English Standard Version correctly translates this same verse, Romans 12:4, this way: "For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function." In other words, we do not all minister in the same way. We do not all serve in the same manner. It has nothing to do with an office.

In 1 Timothy 3:1 the word office is nowhere in the text at all. Let me say that again. The word 'office' in the following verse is not in the original:

If anyone aspires to the (office) of overseer, he desires a noble task.

The original literally says, "if anyone aspires to oversight (epikope), he desires a noble task" The sacred text speaks of a task or a ministry of service - not any mystical 'office.'

Authority is to be experienced in the assembly because of the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit obvious in the believers. In one sense, the entire body shares authority (Ephesians 5:21, 1 Peter 5:5), but in another sense, there are times when we recognize one another's gifts, knowledge, or experiences in the Lord and we choose to serve under or submit to another believer's servant leadership because the Holy Spirit has empowered them with special gifts and has anointed their ministry or service through the functioning of those gifts. My father, Paul Burleson, clearly articulates that this is the key to understanding the authority of anyone who ministers in the local church or is sent by the church to minister to others. He writes:

No one has authority BECAUSE they have a stronger personality, knows more Bible, or they hold an office. That is foreign to the New Testament. Paul the Apostle had to defend his Apostleship by virtue of it being the work of the Spirit setting him aside for it. 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of those elders that "give oversight well" and "are worthy of double honor." It is that "giving (of)oversight well" that is the source of their authority. They defined it as Holy Spirit anointing. In other words, the anointing of the Spirit makes clear the authority that rests on a ministry done well, not the office holder.

An Illustration of Female Ministry Through Anointing

Servanthood is the badge of genuine Christian living and is to be the overriding characteristic of whether or not someone is a true minister. Josephine Scaggs was a female missionary to Africa working under the auspices of the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

She was the first white woman to actually go to the jungles of Nigeria and establish a Christian church. She also founded a pastors school and a medical clinic. Jo had to get permission from both the British government and the Foreign Mission Board to go to Nigeria. When the Foreign Mission Board initially refused, she said she was going to resign and go anyway because her ultimate authority, Jesus Christ, had told her to go. The Board relented, and it was a good thing.

This Southern Baptist woman led thousands of people to Christ, baptized them, and then taught and trained them herself. All told, Josephine Skaggs led 1700 of her converts to become Christian pastors.

During one of our Southern Baptist Conventions in the 1950s, Josephine stood before the Convention during the Foreign Mission Board report and preached to the messengers on their sin of racism. She asked why they would send her and other missionaries to Africa to share the Good News with black men and women but Southern Baptist Pastors would not allow them in their churches. This was the same year that W.A. Criswell, who occupied the 'office' of pastor at First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas, delivered a message praising segregation and calling anyone who proposed desegregation 'heretics.' Dr. Criswell later repented and confessed his sin by saying "Never have I been so blind."

This anecdote illustrates the difference between the authority of ministry and the authority of an office.

Besides Josephine Skaggs, Southern Baptists have had women like Lottie Moon and Bertha Smith, women whom leaders of the Conservative Resurgence claim as some of their heroes. These women constantly ministered among men, taught men in seminary classes, preached behind the pulpits of some of our greatest Southern Baptist Churches, and led thousands of people to faith in Christ. These women, were they alive today, would be faced with the horrible possibility of not even being recognized as true, gifted and powerful servants of God.

Could it be that the Southern Baptist Convention is in danger of losing sight of real Christianity and the ministry of God-called, Spirit-gifted, Christ-honoring women because we have fallen into the trap of believing there is something sacred and authoritative about an 'office?' Have we lost sight of the teaching of the infallible Word of God that real authority in the church comes from service as the people of God, both men and women, are empowered by Jesus Christ?

Let me be both emphatic and clear. I was not personally bothered by the BFM 2000 prohibition on women serving as 'Senior Pastors,' nor am I interested in amending the BFM 2000. I thought the prohibition should never have been included in the Confession, and I said so at the time and continue to say it. If a local church, either in the states or overseas, identifies a woman with spiritual gifts and the empowerment of the Spirit to serve and minister to their congregation, then the decision to call that women to 'oversee' their flock is the autonomous decision of that particular congregation.

To issue an edict about prohibiting a particular action of a local church in a doctrinal confession no less seems to me to establish both a hierarchical authority within the convention and negates the cherished and historic Baptist doctrine of the autonomy of the local church. That being said, my interest today lies in waking up Southern Baptists to the problem that is the undercurrent of why some felt the need to push that particular prohibition - a faulty view of 'authority' and from whence it rises.

Implications for Us Today

We are in danger as a Convention of having men hold the 'office' of a pastor, bestowed on them by congregations who lack any understanding of biblical authority. These pastors are then allowed by their congregations to exert absolute authority. They will often call for blind submission to their every decision - even though these pastors have not exhibited servanthood which is the very evidence of real, biblical authority.

Even worse, we are in danger of losing some of our most gifted, God-called, Christ-honoring Southern Baptist women from our seminaries, colleges, churches, agencies, mission fields, and other places of service because we are refusing to follow the clear teaching of Scripture and acknowledge that real authority flows from gifted service as empowered by Christ - and is not gender or office based.

You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free.

A Post Deserving of Your Close Attention

There are a few men and women that I read in the blog world that, each and every time they write, I am either edified, taught, or come away thinking, "that is a voice the entire SBC needs to hear in this day of confusion."

David Rogers, a missionary for the International Mission Board is one of those persons whose writing does the above for me. David needs no formal introduction, but his newest post deserves your close attention.

His post is entitled The Universal Church, Landmarkism, and John Dagg

The Best Modern Study on the Ekklesia (Church)

My father, Paul Burleson, sent me this morning an excellent series of articles on the true nature of the ekklesia by John Reisinger, one of my favorite Bible teachers of all time. This Southern Baptist pastor/teacher/author has spoken in my church on several occasions and I have spent much of today reading his five part series on The Ekklesia. Every article is excellent. The first article sets the foundation and the fourth article addresses specifically issues we are facing within our convention.

The Ekklesia - One.
The Ekklesia - Two.
The Ekklesia - Three.
The Ekklesia - Four.
The Ekklesia - Five.

You will enjoy these articles and if you really study them, you will always have an answer for that person who tends to take a Landmark view of the church. Many, many issues are at stake in this debate, including evangelical cooperation, missions funding through denominational boards, etc . . .

In His Grace,


Wade