We're Not a Cult: We Just Sometimes Act Like We Are

Over this past weekend, the most read article on Foxnews.com was entitled Magazines Featuring Female Pastors Pulled From Shelves, "Treated Like Pornography."

The online article revealed that LifeWay Christian Bookstores, bookstores overseen by trustees of the Southern Baptist Convention's publishing agency (LifeWay), pulled this month's Gospel Today magazine from its shelves. Gospel Today, published for nearly twenty years, is a conservative, evangelical magazine devoted to discussing current events and issues within evangelical Christianity. The magazine is the most widely distributed urban Christian publication in the country, with a circulation of 240,000. What would cause LifeWay to pull the magazine from its shelves and treat it, according to Gospel Today's editor Teresa Haiston, "like it was pornography"?

It seems this month's cover featured five women, dressed in black and smiling, whom the magazine's editors profiled as the most influential women pastors in America. A spokesman for Lifeway Resources, said the cover was not the reason the magazine was pulled from Lifeway's shelves. He gave the rationale for pulling it from Lifeway's shelves:

"The buyers said the statements that were in it took positions that were contrary to what we would say," Turner said. "It wasn't so much that there were women on the cover."

I don't know the spokesperson for LifeWay, and I'm sure he is a fine Christian gentleman. But his statement should send a chill up the spine of every Christian in the Southern Baptist Convention who loves our Convention and desires us to not act as if we are a cult. Now before my Baptist Identity friends burst a blood vessel, let me remind you that there is a difference between being a cult, and acting like we are a cult. We are not a cult, but sometimes we act like one. Let me show you what I mean.

(1). A cult has 'leaders' who determine what everybody else in the group can, and cannot read; what they can, and cannot do; what they can, and cannot think.

Our SBC LifeWay spokesperson said, "The buyers (of the magazine) said the statements that were in (the magazine) took positions that were contrary to what we would say" What? Surely, he can't be serious? Does he (or anybody who told him to say this) really believe that Southern Baptists are incapable of determining for ourselves what is truth? Do we need guardians of truth to protect our senstitive eyes and ears from possibly viewing things contrary to the truth? Who are these "buyers"? Who are these people concerned that Southern Baptists might "read" something that contradicts what we believe? Is it possible that the word "buyers" is in fact code for certain SBC leaders who called and complained? If so, just tell us. Then, we can make clear to those who desire to control what we read that Southern Baptists are mature, adult evangelicals who can think for themselves. We do not need leaders who act like cult leaders in an attempt to protect us.

(2). A cult is a place of pecular standards of "morality," where leaders are afraid that members will be "corrupted" by simply being "exposed" to the "immoral" through reading about them, or having unintentional contact with them, or heaven forbid, actually associating with them.

Our SBC LifeWay spokesperson said, "The buyers said the statements that were in (the magazine) took positions that were contrary to what we would say."

Good night. Does anyone else so the absurdity of this statement? I take Newsweek, Time, USA Today, and other liberal weekly magazines and read them all from cover to cover. I remain a conservative, both political and religiously, not because I "shield" my eyes, but because of my convictions. Further, the idea that a conservative, evangelical magazine might actually say something about women pastors that will cause Southern Baptists to stumble morally if we were to read it is actually laughable. I personally AGREE with the BFM prohibition regarding women pastors, but we are acting like a "cult" if we think we need to shield ourselves (and others) from this "immorality." I am not even going to talk about the incredible illogic required to treat a gospel magazine as if it "were pornography."

Frankly, I wonder if those who made the decision to pull the magazine may somehow be related to those Southern Baptist IMB trustees who told me that blogging was like internet pornography. One of these days some of our well intentioned Southern Baptist leaders might actually understand the definition of pornography. The stupidity of comparing women who preach the gospel to those women who expose their bodies to the world (by hiding the magazine) will one day dawn upon us who are Southern Baptists.

(3). A cult takes an "us vs. them" mentality, and views everyone who is "not one of us" as the enemy.

Our SBC LifeWay spokesperson said, "The buyers (of the magazine) said the statements that were in (the magazine) took positions that were contrary to what we would say"

"They" say - "we" say. "They" believe - "we" believe. "They" - "we."

Sigh.

Come on folks. We who are Southern Baptists need to say "enough is enough."

We are not a cult, and we should not silently stand by while some SBC leaders give others in the Christian kingdom the impression that we are.

In His Grace,


Wade

The Tragic Love Story of Vivia Thomas: The First Female to Enlist in the United States Army

Females have made incredible progress in terms of their collective advancement in numbers and rank within the United States armed forces, particularly since World War II. However, one of the little known episodes in United States military history is the enlistment and death of Private Vivia Thomas (1840-1870), U.S. 6th Infantry, Fort Gibson, Oklahoma. Her life, one that Hollywood would have a hard time imagining and some call legend, is currently being researched for a book I am writing. She could very well be the first woman ever to enlist in the United States Army, albeit under false pretenses. The photograph to the left is Vivia's tombstone, on the southern end of the Officer's Circle at the center of Fort Gibson National Cemetery, Fort Gibson, Oklahoma. The fact that Vivia is buried in the Officer's Circle, the only enlisted soldier given that honor, gives creedence to her remarkable story.

Vivia's Death

Nearly 140 years ago, on a bitterly cold morning in January of 1870, a lone sentry patrolled the grounds around the U.S. army military outpost called called Fort Gibson, Indian Territory (present day eastern Oklahoma), and discovered the body of one of the fort's soldiers, a young private the soldiers called "Thomas," lying across a grave in the cemetery just north of the fort. The body was taken to Fort Gibson's infirmary, and as the doctor began to perform his examination to determine cause of death, a shocking discovery was made: the soldier was actually a woman..

The doctor immediately reported the strange discovery to the Fort Gibson's commanding officer, and an inquiry began to determine how female soldier had managed to pass herself off as a man and get into the United States Army. It was known that "Thomas" had enlisted in the U.S. 6th Infantry, stationed at Fort Gibson, just a few weeks earlier, but nobody knew the background of young Thomas. Eventually, a minister who assisted the soldiers at Fort Gibson's came forward with one of the strangest stories in American military history. It seems that just a few days before "Thomas" had told the pastor her secret. As the commanding officer and chief medical officer listened minister tell the story of a the young woman named "Vivia Thomas," events were being set in motion that would eventually lead to her burial in the Officer's Circle of Fort Gibson's Military Cemetery.

Vivia's Life as a Boston Brahmin

Vivia Thomas was born into a wealthy family from Boston. From a child, she received all the special privileges of the Boston Brahmin, including the finest education and invitations to all events involving Boston's upper society. It was during one of Boston's elegant parties at the conclusion of the Civil War that Vivia met and fell in love with a handsome Union Army officer.

Boston, Massachussets in the 1860's

The courtship continued and deepened for several months until one day Vivia's family excitedly announced that Vivia was engaged to be married. Wedding plans were announced to the Boston elite, and Vivia's dreams of marriage and family seemed to be on the verge of fruition. Those were happy days for Vivia Thomas.

Sadly, just prior to the wedding day, the young United States Army officer disappeared. He left Vivia a lengthy, apologetic note and explained that though he loved Vivia, he was unsure married life was for him. He wrote that he felt his heart was pulled toward the western frontier and that he had made arrangements with the U.S. Army go west. He wanted adventure. Though he would not specify his post, the letter detailed that he would be stationed at one of the many frontier army outposts of the United State. He did not feel it would be fair to force his wife to leave the comforts of Boston to endure the wilds of the frontier. For this reason, he was breaking the engagement and going west alone.

Broken hearted, and deeply embarrassed for the humiliation she had brought to her own family, young Vivia Thomas determined to leave Boston and go west in search of her lover. Through offical inquiries Vivia learned that her fiance was being stationed at Fort Gibson in the Indian Territory, and one day she suddenly and secretly left her home and family to go find her lover. Her journey west began.

Vivia's Journey West

During the several months it took for Vivia to reach Indian Territory, which included river rafts down the Ohio and Missisippi, and up the Arkansas River, Vivia cut off all of her long, flowing hair and started dressing in men's clothing. She rarely spoke, and would avert anyone's gaze, and would often roughen her face with dirt and coal. At first, her motive had simply been to disguise herself for protection while traveling through rough country as she headed to the frontier to find her lover. The disguise, however, proved successful. Vivia soon became known as "Thomas" and upon arrival at Fort Gibson, Indian Territory via the Arkansas River, she determined to get close to the young officer who had jilted her by enlisting in the 6th U.S. Infantry stationed at Fort Gibson. In those days, when the Army would often receive substitute solders, it was not uncommon for enlisted men to join the ranks of Army Infantry with little knowledge of the soldier's background.

In the weeks that followed, as "Thomas" went about doing various jobs at the fort, including patrolling for Indians, cooking, cleaning and sundry other tasks assigned enlisted men, she was able to hide her identity well. She carefully stayed away from her former lover; but she would watch him closely. Vivia would often find herself vacillating between thoughts of revenge for her hurt and a reunion that would end in an embrace of long lost love.

Vivia's Discovery

One night Vivia decided to secretly follow her former lover as he left the fort. The young officer travelled a short distance from Fort Gibson where Vivia observed him greet with a hug and a kiss a young Indian woman. It seems that the officer had begun a courtship with an Indian woman who lived a short distance from the fort. Vivia would soon discover that her fiance had been making regular evening trips to visit his Indian lover. Vivia followed him through the darkness on many occasions, each time growing more and more bitter.

How could he leave Boston, Massachussets and let her face the humiliation of family and peers? How could he move west and fall in love with an Indian! How could he? The more she thought about what he had done to her, the more the cloud of bitterness descended over her soul.

On a cold winter evening in December 1869, Vivia followed her former lover on his nightly rendezvous with his Indian girlfriend. She waited for him behind an outcropping of stone, debating whether or not to confront him. The longer she waited the more her bitterness motivated her to not reveal herself, but to extract revenge by simply ending his life in payment for how he had ended hers. When the officer finally headed back to Fort Gibson that evening, he rode by on his horse, and Vivia shot him. She never said a word. She never revealed herself to him. She simply shot him, hitting him in the chest and knocking him off his horse. Immediately, she was overcome with overwhelming remorse. She went to where her former lover lie on the ground, only to discover she had shot him dead. With tears streaming down her face, she quickly made her way back to Fort Gibson, where she slipped into her bunk, quietly grieving over the murder.

The next morning, the body of the officer was discovered by a passerby and brought to the fort. The soldiers at the fort assumed that he had been killed by Indians. A small cavalry from the fort went out to search for clues, but in a few days the case was closed. The Indians had ambushed an officer of the United States military.

Vivia's Guilt

The guilt over what she had done overwhelmed Vivia. She continued to leave her quarters every night, but this time she would make her way to Fort Gibson's cemetery. She would go to the young man's grave and weep uncontrollably, praying for forgiveness. Within a couple of weeks, she broke down and told her story to the minister of the fort. She knew he would be honor bound to not divulge her confession. But a couple of nights later, with temperatures below zero degrees, on January 6, 1870, Vivia went to her former lover's grave. This time she stayed for hours, well into the early morning of January 7th. At reveille, a soldier walking the grounds of the cemetery found the body of the soldier he knew as "Thomas" lying prone across a recent grave. Vivia Thomas had frozen to death.

Upon hearing the story of Vivia Thomas from the minister, the commander and military officers made a decision about the burial for this young lady. They had never liked her fiance in the first place because of his various attachments with the local Indians, and they all felt deep admiration for Vivia because of the courage it took for her to traverse the United States - alone - to find her lover. In their own small way of acknowledging that never in the history of the United States military had a woman ever been enlisted in the infantry, and in appreciation of her dogged determism and heroic courage, they gave to Vivia Thomas a plot in the prestigious officer's ring of the Fort Gibson National Cemetery.

Next time you are near Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, take time to find her tombstone. Every grave holds a story, and Vivia's is one of the more remarkable ones.

In His Grace,



Wade Burleson

A Critique of Dorothy Patterson's Article in the Fall 2008 Southwestern News: "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

The Southwestern Theological Seminary news magazine devoted the entire Fall 2008 issue to the subject Modeling Biblical Womanhood. The magazine featured six articles on women, with one being a profile of Dorothy Patterson, wife of SWBTS President Paige Patterson. Another article, authored by Mrs. Patterson, is entitled "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?" The SWBTS news magazine used to be available online, but unless it has been moved to a location on the Internet of which I am unaware, the only way to now read the SWBTS news magazine is to subscribe to it or be an alumni of the seminary and receive it free of charge in the mail. This post is a critique of Mrs. Dorothy Patterson's article "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

I would like to begin by commending Dorothy Patterson for her clear writing style and the abundance of Scriptural references in support of her thesis. I found myself agreeing with the overwhelming majority of what Mrs. Patterson writes. I confess to having learned more about God's word through Mrs. Patterson's writing and believe Mrs. Patterson not only capable of teaching me the Word of God, she actually did teach me through her exegetically sound and expositionally superb interpretions of the Scriptures. Her exegesis of the Hebrew word banah (Gen. 2:22 - "to build") which was used by Moses to describe God creating woman, and her exposition of various Scriptures to show the equality of worth in both man and woman was indeed enlightening. I couldn't help but think Mrs. Patterson would make a great Hebrew or theology professor if SWBTS were ever to be in need of one.

However, I would like to point out three inconsistencies in Mrs. Patterson's article. These inconsistencies are revealed to prove that Mrs. Patterson's personal convictions of what a Christian woman can and cannot do, are not based upon the biblical paradigm she constructs in her article, but in fact exceed the teaching of Scripture and are based on her cultural, personal and comfortable preferences for women. Though Mrs. Patterson's personal convictions about "womanhood" are amoral, they become problematic when are they are called "biblical" and forced on all Southern Baptists.

Inconsistency #1

Mrs. Patterson writes her article with a spirit of authority based on what she calls the "clearly inspired written words of God," and constructs a broad biblical paradigm for womanhood from these clear words; however, Mrs. Patterson then goes further and writes that the biblical paradigm for womanhood can only be discovered through "meticulous exegesis," "deep study," "learning at the feet of one with the exegetical tools for deep study," in order to "ferret out" exactly what God is saying about His paradigm.

It would seem to me that if God's paradigm for women for all time is supposed to be clear, then He will make it clear. Mrs. Patterson does construct a clear biblical paradigm for women (see below) with which we all can agree, but she goes further and writes of her extra-biblical expectations for women that exceed the very biblical paradigm she constructs. All conservative evangelicals agree on the equality of men and women before God and the character of both Christian men and women as Mrs Patterson reveals. But the fact that evangelicals disagree on whether or not to limit the functions and roles of women in culture, society and the church, should be a clear indication that Mrs. Patterson's personal "paradigm" for women, which exceeds her own biblical paradigm, is based upon her own cultural and personal comforts. This inconsistency between the actually biblical clarity regarding womanhood and Mrs. Patterson's professed ability to "ferret out" God's true intentions about women should cause any Christian to pause and reflect on the appropriateness of demanding others to conform to personal convictions about women that go beyond the simple and clear biblical paradigm for womanhood.

Inconsistency #2

Mrs. Patterson's lays out a very clear Biblical paradigm for womanhood, a paradigm based on the character qualities of God's people, which could also be called a biblical paradigm for manhood; but Mrs. Patterson then reveals some of her own personal preferences, convictions and cultural comforts regarding women - convictions that exceed the very clear biblical paradigm of womanhood she herself constructs in the article.

Mrs. Patterson summarizes "A Paradigm of Biblical Womanhood" this way (my comments follow each point and are in parenthesis):

Who Is She?

(1). She is created "in the image of God"(Gen. 1:27). (But so is a man created by God in the image of God).

(2). She is assigned to be a "helper" (Gen. 2:18). (But so is a man called by God to be a servant).

(3). She is uniquely fashioned with a life-bearing womb and the capacity for nurturing (Gen. 3:16,20). (Here, alone, the woman is distinct from man as intended by God).

(4). She is identified as a "joint heir of the grace of life" (I Pt. 3:7). (But so is a man a joint heir of the grace of life).


What Does She Do?

(5). She "fears the Lord" (Pr. 31:30) (But so should a man).

(6). She develops a "gentle and quiet spirit" (I Pt. 3:4). (But so should a man be quiet and and gentle and not give full vent to his emotions as does a fool. Prov. 29:11).

(7). She honors her husband and the Lord through her diligence and creativity (Pr. 31). (But so should a man honor his wife through diligence and creativity).

(8). She is committed not only to human relationships but also to God (Ru. 1:16) (But so is a man committed not only to human relationships but also to God).

(9). She is available (I Sam 25:32-33) (But so is a man to say, "Here am I Lord, send me.")

(10). She does what she can, however humble the task (Mk 14:8) (But so should a man do everything with humility. Can you even imagine the opposite: "I will NOT change the baby's diaper, I'm a MAN!").

(11). She shares the good news of the Gospel(Acts 21:9) (But so does a man share the good news).

(12). She participates in mentoring and discipleship (Acts 18:26) (But so does a man disciple others).

(13). She accepts God-given boundaries and recognizes the authorities mandated by Scripture (I Tm 2:9-15) (But so should a man accept God-given boundaries, and interestingly, the boundaries in this I Tm 2:9-15 text, which include "women should not adorn themselves with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, etc . . ." are not even mentioned by Mrs. Patterson in her article, with good reason, as I will show momentarily).

I cannot think of one professing Christian, or one evangelical, or even one Southern Baptist who would disagree with the above Biblical paradigm. It basically describes all Christians - both men and women - except in the specific area of child-birth.

This, according to Mrs. Patterson is the Biblical paradigm for womanhood. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Imagine if this were the actual paradigm within the Southern Baptist Convention. Can you imagine the cooperation among married women and single women? Can you envision the acceptance and love among working women and stay-at-home moms? Can you grasp the cooperative nature of families where men stay at home and raise the kids while mom works, and those families where mom stays at home with the kids and dad works? It would seem to me that in the above paradigm all Southern Baptists would be accepted as cooperative, evangelical Southern Baptists.

But Mrs. Patterson allows a few sentences in her article to reveal the true desires of those who wish a uniform "paradigm" for womanhood within our Convention - a "paradigm" that exceeds the Scriptures. It is a paradigm built on personal, cultural and comfortable convictions regarding women that some Southern Baptist conservatives, including Dorothy Patterson, wish to enforce on all others. Allow me to explain. Dorothy says that "evangelicals" propose a "biblical" feminism that is detrimental. She writes:

"The ever-confusing "double speak," even in the church, is an effort to accomodate the corporate agenda coming from spiraling feminism and the personal whims arising out of a postmodern culture." Dorothy Patterson, from paragraph one in "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

I would like to ask Mrs. Patterson a few questions about her statement above. Where in the biblical paradigm you delineate for us is a prohibition for a woman to work in a corporation or outside the home? Where in the biblical paradigm is there the possibility for "double speak" in the church? What Christian would ever disagree with your (13) descriptive qualifiers of the "Biblical Paradigm or Womanhood?" Could it be that what some Southern Baptists disagree with you over is not the biblical paradigm, but your cultural and personal paradigm you wish to enforce on all women?

"Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary must equip women to . . . disciple women for Kingdom service." Dorothy Patterson, from paragraph four in "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

Again, I would like to ask a few questions of Mrs. Patterson. I commend you for desiring women to teach women, but where do you and your husband assume that a woman cannot teach a man? You have done a great job teaching in this article yourself, but what causes your discomfort for a woman to teach a man Hebrew at your seminary? What causes you angst over a woman discipling a man in the things of God? Is it number (13) in your "paradigm" above? Are you basing your views the specific role of women, as vague and unspoken as they are in your article, on I Timothy 2:9-15, a passage that also seems to prohibit women from wearing "pearls," "gold," or "braids" in their hair? Could it be that the proper interpretation of this passage can only be arrived at when understanding the culture in which Timothy found himself at the time? In other words, do you believe that the only true interpretation of this I Timothy text is that a woman cannot ever teach or ever have "authority" over a man whether it be in culture, the church or the home? Is that your view? If so, just say it. If not, then I think you must allow for differing interpretations of this text. Interestingly, you yourself refrain from defining the boundaries of I Timothy 2:9-15 in your article. If they were important, it would seem to me that you would have listed them in your "paradigm."

Inconsistency #3

"Every woman serious about selfless service to Christ must ferret out the divinely appointed design from the Creator Himself even if that prototype does not appear palatable to contemporary standards and agendas." Dorothy Patterson, from the last paragraph, "Is There a Biblical Paradigm for Womanhood?"

The SWBTS news magazine goes on to profile women at Southwestern, including Mrs. Patterson, who are all homemakers, married, and committed to raising children in the home while the husband makes the living. I enjoyed reading all the profiles and commend each woman for following God's design for her life.

However, these Southern Baptist Theological Seminary women, including Mrs. Patterson, need to realize that there are some Southern Baptist women who are divorced or single, some Southern Baptist women who are living as a single-parents raising their kids alone, some Southern Baptist married women who work outside the home while raising their children as well, and some Southern Baptist women who are are missionaries, teachers, and corporate officers with authority over men - and they all are fulfilling God's design for their lives. I commend these women for following God's design for their life just as much as I commend the SWBTS women who stay at home, raising kids, while their husbands preach.

And, I have Scripture on my side as I commend both groups. The biblical paradigm for womanhood Mrs. Patterson gave in her article is fulfilled by each of the categories of women listed above. It seems to me that the real cultural dilemma going on in the Southern Baptist Convention is the pushing upon all women an extra-Biblical paradigm for women that reflects the 1950's "Leave It to Beaver" model of womanhood and has nothing to do with Scripture, but everything to do with middle class America a generation ago. Southern Baptists must learn that to believe in the inerrant, infallible, sufficient Scripture is the ability to lay aside all cultural biases and follow Scripture alone.

I believe Mrs. Patterson has been clearer in previous years regarding her personal convictions about womanhood. For instance, in the article she wrote in 2001 entitled Lies vs. Truth: The Question is Biblical Womanhood, she argues for Convention wide acceptance of her interpretations of I Timothy 2:9-15. I'm hoping that Mrs. Patterson's vagueness about her personal convictions regarding women in the SWBTS Fall 2008 newsletter reflects a more cooperative spirit with other Southern Baptists who do not share her personal convictions that exceed the clear biblical paradigm of womanhood. I hope so. However, if Mrs. Patterson's article is simply a subterfuge to hide the real paradigm for women that is held by Fundamentalists in our Convention, then I have a prediction to make. If we as a Convention do not resist demands that all Southern Baptist conform to an extra-biblical paradigm of womanhood, a paradigm that is often passed off as "biblical," we will find our growth and influence in the kingdom of Christ diminished for decades to come.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Only True Authority that Comes from God Is a Result of Service, Not Gender

In March of 2000 The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood hosted a Conference for people interested in the subject of Christian submission. During a Conference forum entitled "How Submission Works in Practice" Dr. Paige Patterson was asked a question about how a Christian wife should respond to spousal physical abuse. The answer Dr. Patterson gave, in my opinion, reflects the danger of a any belief system that promotes the idea that the male in the marriage possesses an inherent authority to which the Christian wife must at all times submit.

My previous post contained the example of an African-American seamstress who was beaten by her master and refused to submit to the beating, but fought against it. A few commentors asked the question, "What does this have to do with Southern Baptists?" The answer to that question is clear to me. When anyone - whether it be Gothard, Patterson, Stanley, Mohler, Elliff, or any other Southern Baptist (Gothard is a member of a Southern Baptist Church in Oklahoma City) - promotes submission because there is an inherent hierarchy of authority in relationships, then we have a warped view of both authority and submission. True Christian authority in marriage, church government, and any other kind of relationship among believers comes not from an office, gender, or title, but through service. Jesus said, "He that is greatest among shall be your servant" (Matthew 23:11).

Some within the SBC, including Dr. Patterson, believe that males have an inherent authority over females. This is why a woman cannot teach men in the Southern Baptist Convention. This is why a woman cannot lead men in the Southern Baptist Convention. This is why the ideal Southern Baptist woman, at least in Patterson's mind, is a woman who is a housewife and mother and supports her husband's authority and God-given role within society and the church. This is also why a Christian wife should be submissive to her husband - even when he is beating her.

Don't believe me? The following is the actual transcript from the audio of Dr. Patterson as he answered the question how a Christian wife should to her husband when she is being beaten by him. Please note: Dr. Patterson, like all of us, condemns any man who would beat his wife. That is not the issue. The issue within the SBC is this notion that there is some kind of inherent authority in husbands to which wifes must subject themselves while being beaten. It's this notion that there is some inherent authority within males to which women must subject themselves as Christ the Son subjected Himself to God the Father. It's the same kind of attitude within the heart of the Presbyterian minister who beat his slave, believing she had the God-given role of submitting herself to her master.

It is this attitude that must change within the Convention. The audio for this portion of the CBMW has been removed from the CBMW website, but I post it here to illustrate why this issue is an important one within our Convention. Patterson illustrates how he, as pastor, counseled a woman who was being beaten.

I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.”

And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.”

And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”

And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis.

And remember, when nobody else can help, God can. And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him.

In His Grace,


Wade

My Prayer For Miss Courtney Tarter: "That One Day, by God's Grace, You May Recover from Your Recovery"

Miss Courtney Tarter, a Southern Theological Seminary employee and theology student, wrote an article last September entitled Confessions of a Recovering Feminist. Tarter's article has been praised by Dr. Russell Moore who is the current Vice-President at Southern Seminary and the one Dr. Mohler is grooming to be the next President at Southern. Though I read the article when Miss Tarter initially posted it, I paid little attention to the content of it since I too am opposed to the liberal political feminist agenda of our culture. But, three events have occurred this week that lead me to pray for Miss Courtney Tarter's recovery from her alleged feminism recovery.

First, ABC News briefly interviewed Miss Tarter for a nationally broadcast news segment and I went back and researched Miss Tarter and her writings on The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website. It was then I realized her understanding of "feminism" was something way different than the typical Southern Baptist understanding of it. Second, my wife, who read my blogpost, was so intrigued that she ended up researching Miss Tarter's writings for herself - and told me that she was personally offended by Tarter's Confessions of a Recovering Feminist. Finally, I had the privilege this week of reading the personal memoirs of Elizabeth Keckly, an African-American seamstress who worked for Mary Todd Lincoln in the Lincoln White House, and came to the realization that the Southern Baptist Convention needs more women with the spirit of Miss Keckly and not Miss Tarter.

Drs. Mohler and Moore praise Miss Tarter's conclusions in her post, but my wife perceptively pointed out to me a couple of very serious doctrinal problems in Miss Tarter's writings. My wife of twenty-five years (Rachelle) is a conservative, evangelical Christian who has helped me raise four wonderful kids, graduated from Nursing School at forty three years of age with a 4.0 grade average, and is currently enrolled at the University of Oklahoma completing her Masters as a Clinical Nurse Specialist. She is also the sweetest woman you will ever meet, one who is rarely offended, so when she told me Tarter's article offended her, I took notice. Rachelle pointed out to me two statements in Tarter's Confessions of a Recovering Feminist that should send shivers up the spines of all Southern Baptists.

(1). "Feminism is in the core of our hearts apart from the saving work of the shed blood of Christ, and not simply because we are militant against male authority, but primarily because we are opposed to the greatest authority of all—our Creator." Miss Courtney Tarter

Feminism, according to SBC seminary trained Cortney Tarter, is opposition to male authority and God's authority.

As Southern Baptists, we keep hearing the pertinent issue in our Convention is "pastoral" authority. Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, and others keep hammering away at the "liberals" who are advocating female "pastoral" authority. I keep asking questions like "What does pastoral authority have to do with female Southern Baptist Hebrew professors?" "What does pastoral authority have to do with female Vice-Presidents of the IMB?" "What does pastoral authority have to do with missionaries at the Strategy Associate level?" "What does pastoral authority have to do with Southern Baptists refusing to endorse Southern Baptist female military chaplains?" I believe Miss Courtney Tarter has provided the answer to my questions, an answer that I have suspected all along, but Moore, Patterson, Mohler and other SBC leaders are careful not to state as bluntly as Miss Tarter.

The issue is male authority in the Southern Baptist Convention, or more precisely, females are to always be subordinate to males; at all places, at all times, and under all circumstances. The issue in the SBC is not about "women pastors" and don't let anybody continue to blow that smoke in your face - it is about certain SBC leaders who believe that women should submit to men - period. Again, the issue in our Convention is the attempt to demand everyone believe in male authority over women.

A handful of powerful SBC leaders in our Convention are pushing a very bizzare scenario of removing women from leadership positions, all the while attempting to mislead us regarding the reasons for their actions. These SBC leaders, including seminary Presidents, their friends who serve as SBC agency trustees, and other strategically placed SBC leaders believe that there should never be a Southern Baptist woman with with any authority over a man. Again, they say they are seeking to protect "pastoral" authority, but it is not about "pastoral authority." Their belief is in male authority.

(2). "Instead of seeing our gender differences as mere cultural constructions we must first admit that there was something far greater going on in the Garden than we now realize, and when Creation fell, it was distorted. In creating man and woman differently, God was pointing to the beauty of the Trinitarian relationship." Miss Courtney Tarter

Pointing to the Trinity in order to establish the "eternal subordination" of the female to the male is a new and growing phenomenon. Yet this heretical teaching is taking hold among some in our Southern Baptist Convention, particularly at our seminaries, as a theological basis to keep women eternally subordinate to men. Southern Baptists best wake up to this growing tendency to use a false understanding of the Trinity to justify the eternal subordination of women to men before the pastors of our Southern Baptist churches begin to accept this doctrine as "the norm." Not only is it not normal, it borders on bizarre. Just because we admire Mohler, just because there is fear that respected seminary administrators like Dr. Moore and Dr. Patterson may torpedo your chances to get a SBC church, you shouldn't be afraid to push back. Loyalty is a major value right now in the Southern Baptist Convention, but following fidelity to the fringe of foolishness will destroy our Convention.

The Gripping, Heartwrenching Story of Elizabeth Keckley

I titled this post, My Prayer for Miss Courtney Tarter: "That One Day, By God's Grace, You May Recover from Your Recovery. What Miss Tarter needs recovery from is her warped concept that a woman is to always be submissive to male authority. That bizarre view may actually cause a Southern Baptist to teach that a wife who is being beaten by her husband should submit to the beatings (more about the tape recording I heard where a Southern Baptist Seminary President actually advocated this on a later post). Our Southern Baptist women need to understand that nowhere in Scripture does God order a woman to be subordinate to a man because of gender. Let me repeat: There is not one scrap of evidence - not one jot or tittle of the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures - that should ever cause a woman to feel she is subordinate to a man because of her gender. To militate against a woman's subordination to a man is not feminism. It is respecting the equality of the man and the woman.

For my part, I wish Miss Tarter was more like Elizabeth Keckley. Elizabeth, an African-American seamstress for the Lincoln White House, was born into slavery in 1830. Her story is an incredible journey from slavery to the White House. Without comment, I will simply encourage you to read Keckley's own words as she describes her spirit while being beaten by a very poor North Carolina Presybyterian minister in 1850. At the time of this beating, Miss Keckly was the same age as Miss Tarter. She had been given to the minister as a slave gift, the minister and his wife being unable themselves to afford any slaves. Miss Keckley was unsure as to the reason for the beating described below, but believes it was because she fell asleep while rocking the Presbyterian minister's small child.

"My master was a good-hearted man, but was influenced by his wife. It was Saturday evening, and while I was bending over the bed, watching the baby that I had just hushed into slumber, Mr. Bingham came to the door and asked me to go with him to his study. Wondering what he meant by his strange request, I followed him, and when we had entered the study he closed the door, and in his blunt way remarked, "Lizzie, I am going to flog you." I was thunderstruck, and tried to think if I had been remiss in anything. I could not recollect of doing anything to deserve punishment, and with surprise exclaimed: "Whip me, Mr. Bingham! what for?"

"No matter," he replied, "I am going to whip you, so take down your dress this instant."

Recollect, I was eighteen years of age, was a woman fully developed, and yet this man coolly bade me take down my dress. I drew myself up proudly, firmly, and said, "No, Mr. Bingham, I shall not take down my dress before you. Moreover, you shall not whip me unless you prove the stronger."

My words seemed to exasperate him. He seized a rope, caught me roughly, and tried to tie me. I resisted with all my strength, but he was the stronger of the two, and after a hard struggle succeeded in binding my hands and tearing my dress from my back. Then he picked up a rawhide, and began to ply it freely over my shoulders. With steady hand and practised eye, he would raise the instrument of torture, nerve himself for a blow, and with a fearful force the rawhide descended upon the quivering flesh. It cut the skin, raised great welts, and the warm blood trickled down my back. Oh God! I can feel the torture now - the terrible, excruciating agony of those moments. I did not scream; I was too proud to let my tormentor know what I was suffering. I closed my lips firmly, that not even a groan might escape from them, and I stood like a statue while the keen lash cut deep into my flesh. As soon as I was released, stunned with pain, bruised and bleeding . . . I exclaimed "Master, what I done that I should be punished so severely?"

I would not put off thus. "What have I done? I will know why I have been flogged."

I saw his cheeks flush with anger, but I did not move. Without an explanation, he seized a chair, struck me, and felled me to the floor. I rose, bewildered, almost dead with pain, crept to my room, dressed my bruised arms and back as best I could and then lay down, but not to sleep. No, I could not sleep, for I was suffering mental as well as bodily torture. My spirit rebelled against the unjustness that had been inflicted upon me, and though I tried to smother my anger and to forgive those who had been so cruel to me, it was impoossible. The next morning I was more calm, and I believe that I could then have forgiven everything for the sake of one kind word. But the kind word was never proffered, and it may be possible, that I grew somewhat wayward and sullen. Though I had faults, I know now, as I felt then, harshness was the poorest inducement for the correction of them. It seems that (the pastor) had pledged himself to the Mrs. to subdue what he called "my stubborn pride." On Friday following the Saturday on which I was so savagely beaten, I was again directed to come to the study. On entering the room I found him prepared with a new rope and a new cowhide. I told him that I was ready to die, but that he could not conquer me. In struggling with him I bit his finger severely, when he seized a heavy stick and beat me with it in a shameful manner. The following Thursday, again he tried to conquer me, but in vain. We struggled, and he struck me many savage blows. As I stood bleeding before him, nearly exhausted with his efforts, he burst into tears, and declared that it would be a sin to beat me any more. My suffering at last subdued his hard heart; he asked my forgiveness, and afterwards was an altered man. He who preached the love of Heaven, who glorified the precepts and examples of Christ, who expounded the Holy Scriptures Sabbath after Sabbath from the pulpit refused to whip me any more."

Miss Tarter, keep your pride in being a female. Stay strong in desiring to follow the Word of God. I pray, however, that you will one day see, as did Miss Keckley, that it is not a sin to refuse to submit to the authority of a man - or even a pastor, or even a Seminary President, or even a boss.

You, Miss Tarter, are equal to them in God-given human authority.

In His Grace,


Wade

Full Disclosure and Christian Integrity in the SBC

ABC News is airing a special series entitled "Fifty States in Fifty Days. " ABC is traveling to the fifty states of our union to film special features that are broadcast during ABC World News Tonight. Last Sunday night, September 28th, 2008, the ABC Fifty States Series focused on Kentucky and what the people of that state think about Sarah Palin's Vice-Presidential candidacy. A portion of the piece was filmed on the campus Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. An official release from Southern Theological Seminary, on Dr. Mohler's blog Monday, September 29th, has Dr. Mohler saying about the three SBTS students who were interviewed:

I was really proud of our students, who spoke so well, so confidently, and so faithfully. This issue doesn't look to go away any time soon. A world so confused about so much can't believe that so many Christians believe that God intends for men and women to have different roles in the church.

I agree with President Mohler's assessment. The three young people and Dr. Mohler were all articulate and bright. However, I find it interesting that the three "students" interviewed are employed by Southern Theological Seminary and report directly to Dr. Russell Moore (see here regarding Miss Courtney Tarter, here about Mr. Toby Jennings, and here for Mr. Phillip Bethancourt). I called Dr. Moore at Southern Seminary yesterday to talk with him about his employees, but have not yet heard back from him. You might ask, "What's the big deal?" Well, maybe I am a little old fashioned, but it would seem to me that a Southern Seminary statement about the ABC News piece would be much closer to the truth if it were to have complete disclosure and Dr. Mohler would say:

I was really proud of our Southern Theological Seminary employees who also happen to be students. They spoke so well, so confidently, and so faithfully. Dr. Moore and I are proud to have on the payroll people who reflect our views so consistently. An evangelical world so confused about our Convention's demand that every conservative Christian interpret the Scriptures the way we do about men and women can't believe that we have students at our seminary who so faithfully hold to our interpretation of Scripture; but our employees showed the world that we do.

Just trying to do my part to keep our Convention honest (wink).

And, by the way, I agree with Southern's views (i.e. President Mohler and her employees) - I just think it is detrimental to attempt to label conservative evangelicals who disagree with us as either "worldly," "liberal," or a threat to evangelicalism, and maybe even sillier to pawn off employees whose future pay is on the line as free thinking "students." We Southern Baptists sometimes act as if truth needs a tight, vigorous defense; but like Spurgeon, I believe truth is like a lion and simply needs to be loosed, not defended. We Southern Baptists need to be humble enough to realize that the more we try to control the presentation of "the lion of truth" to others the more we might need to take a look at whether or not we've simply caged our personal system of beliefs and appointed guardians with instructions to protect her; all the while fearful other Christians might actually ask us to open the cage and prove we really have a lion.

Let her loose. Create an atmosphere of healthy debate. Don't be afraid ABC might actually interview a student who disagrees. And, above all, let's have a Convention where full disclosure is the norm, not the exception.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Growing Semi-Arianism in the SBC and the Consequences for Women If Left Unchallenged

Periodically Istoria Ministries will offer a doctrinal post for debate and discussion. Many Christians have little endurance when it comes to doctrinal reading and even less comprehension of how doctrine affects behavior.

This apathy for doctrine has far-reaching harmful consequences.

For this reason I challenge you to carefully read the following article as it reveals a doctrinal debate within the Southern Baptist Convention that has direct consequences on our Convention’s attitude and behavior towards women.

Let me repeat the last sentence for clarity: There is a current doctrinal debate within the SBC that directly affects our Convention’s attitude and behavior toward women in general.

The Arian Controversy

Arius was a Christian who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt (250-336 AD). He became the leading proponent of a heretical teaching that would later be identified with his name. Arianism is the belief that God the Father and the Son did not exist together equally and eternally, but that Jesus was created by God the Father and is eternally subordinate to the Father.

In plain English, Arianism teaches Jesus is inherently inferior to God the Father.

Some Christians wrongly confuse Arianism with Aryanism. The latter is the belief that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive, superior race. Hitler was an Aryan, but not an Arian. Aryanism is a belief in human racial superiority. Arianism is a belief in divine patriarchal hierarchy.

In 325 AD, Christian leaders gathered in the city of Nicaea (modern-day Iznik, Turkey) and debated the doctrine of the Trinity. The Council of Nicaea convened on May 20, 325 AD with around 300 pastors present to discuss the Arian Controversy.

After meeting for a solid month, these pastors issued on June 20, 325 AD what we now call The Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed is the clearest and most accepted statement on the divinity of Christ in the history of the church.

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, believing this to be the biblical and traditional Christian teaching handed down from the Apostles.

The Nicaea Council believed that Arianism destroys the unity of the Godhead, and makes the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one" John 10:30).

The Council of Nicaea ended with the Christian pastors declaring Arius and his followers heretics.

A Resurging Semi-Arianism in the Southern Baptist Convention

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is composed of many Southern Baptists who are introducing to evangelicalism a novel, if not peculiar, view of Christ which has more in common with Arianism than the historic, orthodox view of Christ’s person.

The theologians and teachers who write for the CBMW are teaching what they call “the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father” as a basis for their anti-New Testament, patriarchal view that the female is always to be subordinate to the male.

Women’s subordination to men, according to the teachings of CBMW, is established because it reflects the truth of Trinity. Women will always be subordinate to men and wives will always be subordinate to husbands because Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father.

That is the scary doctrine being promoted by leading Southern Baptists, a doctrine deemed heresy by the church nearly two millennia ago, and a doctrine that has disastrous consequences for women in the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Bible calls man's desire to "rule over a woman" a sin. The notion that God designed leaders to be males, and that He designed women in the role of submissive servants to men, is a direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

"Jesus called His disciples together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord their power over people, and their high officials exercise authority over others. It shall not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must serve." (Matthew 20:25-27) 

The false doctrine of men's hierarchal authority of women 

Some Southern Baptists, like Paige Patterson, Al Mohler,  and Wayne Grudem, believe and teach that the man is equated to God the Father in hierarchical authority. The woman can be equated to God the Son in humble submission. Just as the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, so the woman is to be eternally subordinate to the man.

For this reason, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood proposes that God’s unchanging ideal is the permanent subordination of women.

Their teaching is in error, and it contradicts the teaching of the New Testament.

The New Testament teaches that followers of Jesus Christ - regardless of gender - are to submit "one to another" (Ephesians 5:21). It is as natural in a Christian home for a man to submit to his wife in selfless, humble service as it is for the woman to submit to her husband in selfless, humble service. In fact, the great leaders in the Kingdom - male and female - are those who are servants to all (Matthew 5:27).

While there is no denial that there are differences between men and women, to base the “subordination” of women to men on the alleged eternal subordination of the Son to God the Father borders on an Arian view of the nature of Christ.

The very word “ordination means “to order by virtue of superior authority.”

To say Christ is “subordinate” to the Father means he has lesser (sub) authority, lesser (sub) superiority, lesser (sub) ordination.

There is a great deal that will be said in the Southern Baptist Convention and the evangelical world as a whole in the coming months and years about the role of women in society, the church, and the home.

Sadly, there is a tendency for those who hold to the hierarchical view of a man’s authority over women to label those who disagree with them as liberal. I've come to believe that those Christians who truly believe the teachings of Jesus Christ and who truly hold to the infallibility of the New Covenant Scriptures are at the forefront of empowering and encouraging women.

Those who follow Arian's teachings more than Christ's teachings refuse to let a woman teach Hebrew to men because of her lesser "spiritual authority" They refuse to allow a woman to hold a supervisor’s position in the International Mission Board because of her need to be subordinate to men and receive orders from men, not give them.  They advocate that women staying out of the work force because of their subordination to men in society, and call "liberal" those who oppose their alleged non-sinful "roles" of men and women. To these Southern Baptist modern Arians, women are viewed and treated as the “lesser” in terms of “authority” when compared to men, and anyone who dares disagree with them is considered a "liberal" Christian or a pagan.

It’s time for conservative, evangelical Bible-believing Christians who believe in the equality of men and women to realize that the great error in this debate is not a denial of the sufficiency, the authority, and the infallibility of God's Word by those who hold to gender equality.

Rather, the great error in this modern debate is the promotion of semi-Arianism - and a denial of Christ's clear teaching in the New Covenant - by those who wish to force their hierachical views of male authority upon the church, the home and society.

Peter Schemm, a member of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, argues that there is room within Christian orthodoxy for the belief in "the eternal subordination of Christ." He argues that people like Giles (and me) who oppose "eternal subordination" and view it as semi-Arianism are simply speaking too harshly for "there is room for both views within evangelicalism."

It is ironic that those who have an affinity for calling conservative evangelicals who disagree with them "liberal" are now proposing tolerance and acceptance of their unique views of the Trinity.

I do believe that we should accept our brothers (and a few sisters) in Christ who are arguing for "eternal subordination," and we should always treat them with Christian love and respect, but we should never be shy to challenge their unorthodox views of the Trinity.

Arius lost the debate in 325 AD, and I predict semi-Arianism will eventually be on the losing side of this current debate.

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.