Help Needed for a Tornado Ravaged SBC Church

The following letter is from Dwight McKissic, Pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church, Arlington, Texas. In response to his request to help some fellow Southern Baptists, I will be requesting our church to financially assist the Cowboy Way Church this Sunday night. Let's join together to help one of our own. Dwight writes:

"Bro. Dan Haby is pastor of Cowboy Way Church here in North Texas. Melanie, Dan's wife, serves alongside him as Church Administrator and Minister to Women. They are both graduates of Southwestern Seminary and planted this church several years ago to reach out to the cowboy community. Until recently Cowboy Way Church has been meeting in a tent. Earlier this week a tornado touched down in Alvarado, Texas and the tent where they were meeting was destroyed. Not only did they lose the tent but they lost the sound system and the sound board was destroyed. The only things that survived was the chairs and the microphones that were enclosed in cases. I talked with them earlier today and they are frantically searching for a place to lease for the future and they are planning worship services in the open air at the former tent sight this Sunday. Insurance companies do not insure church sights that meet in tents.

Obviously, the Haby's are experiencing somewhat of a crisis time in their ministry. I am writing you to make two requests;

(a.) please pray for Dan and Melanie Haby and Cowboy Way Church in your Sunday morning services this Sunday

(b.) would you consider giving a missions gift, benevolent offering, discretionary fund gift or whatever means you choose and mail that gift to the Cowboy Way Church to help them recover their losses? You could either send your gift directly to the church at PO Box 1196, Alvarado, TX 76009 or you could send it to the ANC and we can forward one check to Cowboy Way Church.

Of course if this email reaches you too late for you to respond by this coming Sunday, April 13 you have the rest of April and May to respond, if you so choose.

Thanks for your consideration in this matter and I'm sure at the very least the Haby's would appreciate a word of encouragement by sending an email cowboydan@juno.com or to Cowboy Way Church, PO Box 1196, Alvarado, TX 76009."

Sincerely in Christ,


Dwight McKissic

Desiring the Death of the Death of Dissent

Hershael York, IMB trustee from Kentucky, reported that the IMB meeting this week in Sunnyvale, Texas was "absent some of the drama of the past" and focused on missions. It is great to hear that the business of missions was the focus of the IMB meeting, as it should be at every meeting.

There are a couple of Baptist identity folks who have expressed their sentiment that the previous drama at the IMB was caused by yours truly. One described it as "the pitiful antics of one man trying to make a name for himself and refusing to repent and surrender when reprimanded. I laughed when I read this anonymous 'preacherman' comment posted to the site by Wes Kenney, who himself advocates a renewal of the Baptist identity religion.

The last time I ever initiated going to a microphone at a Board of Trustee meeting was in November of 2005. At the time, I calmly questioned trustee leadership why they were pushing policies that the President opposed, particularly since I had requested repeatedly to see field data that the policies were needed. Those pushing the policies (trustee leadership) never gave me one scrap of paper that showed me there was a problem on the mission field that necessitated these new policies. They could not articulate for me or others one instance of a field problem not correctly handled by IMB personnel that would necessitate the proposed policies. It would be a year later that Chairman Floyd would announce to me that trustee leadership needed no field anecdotal evidence that the policies were needed. This was a 'doctrinal' matter, and Baptists needed doctrinal purity. Despite my objections (and several other trustees), the policies passsed.

Less than a month later (December 2005) I began my blog. I simply explained what had occurred the previous six months on the Board, made the Convention aware of the new policies, and proposed that there was an orchestrated attempt by some to either marginalize or remove Dr. Rankin because he did not meet the standards of the new Baptist identity movement. My great concern was that the Southern Baptist Convention was becoming inbred, and as a result, the demands for doctrinal conformity on tertiary issues was causing us to lose wonderful Southern Baptists who would otherwise be qualified to serve. The fact that these new doctrinal policies exceeded the BFM 2000, the only consensus confessional standard of the SBC, seemed to not matter much at the time.

From that November 2005 IMB meeting until I resigned from the IMB in January 2008, with the exception of a brief recommendation I made in early 2007 that requested an increase in the stipend given to retiring missionaries, I never once went to the microphone to initiate any conversation, never once went to a microphone to propose any item of business, never once went to a microphone to initiate any discussion, and despite what some would have you believe, I never once initiated the use of any time at an IMB meeting to ask questions about the adopted controversial policies, never initiated any comment regarding actions against me, nor did I ever request to address the Board about any other matter (the record will reflect this). I felt that we should spend our meetings conducting missions business. For reasons only they could give, some trustees felt that the laser focus of the board should be on me.

However, from 2005 to 2008 trustee leadership brought reommendation after recommendation that had me at the focus, not missions. There was the recommendation to remove me from the Board (January 2006), then a unanimous recommendation to rescind that recommendation since it had to be approved by the entire SBC (March 2006). Trustee leadership brought a recommendation directed at me that called for all trustees 'to publicly support a board approved action, even if they cannot privately support it' (March 2006). A subcommittee brought a recommendation to revisit the policies and ultimately revise them as 'guidelines' after the SBC requested an investigation into why the IMB exceeded the doctrinal statements of the BFM and was excluding otherwise qualified missionary applicants from service based upon these 'policies' (2007). Finally, one trustee brought a recommendation to 'censure' me (November 2007), and trustee leadership issued a report (never voted on) that the Board not 'accept' my apology for being the cause of 'distraction' since it was not an apology for publicly opposing the adopted policies in the first place (January 2008). It was at that meeting (January 2008) that I initiated, for the first time, a request to address the Board. I resigned that night.

My point is this: during all the debate on the above issues I never went to a microphone to speak unless I was called to do so by trustee leadership in response to their initiatives to 'deal with Burleson.' If there was any 'drama' in previous meetings, it was because some didn't like the fact that they could be questioned and public dissent over their actions would be expressed. My friend C.B. Scott puts it succinctly:

The absence of vocalized differences of opinions in a meeting means nothing more than that. Is the ultimate goal of the trustee board to have no disagreements? Sometimes the presence of a “sweet-spirited” meeting is evidence of cowardliness and a lack of conviction among other things.

There is no doubt that trustee leadership operates under the conviction that they represent true 'Baptist identity,' and those seeking approval of those currently in charge of denominational direction, will join them in the new Baptist identity movement. However, when Southern Baptists of this persuasion begin to realize that the best way to handle dissent is to allow it, to be so confident in your positions that you are unbothered by it, and accept people who disagree as part of the cooperative efforts of the SBC, then we will truly possess the identity Baptists have historicaly held.

The downfall of a denomination built on dissent can be traced through the denigration, intimidation, and exclusion of the dissenters. There will be no deliverance until there is the death of the death of dissent in the SBC.

Until it happens,

Wade Burleson

Pulling Back the Curtain on SBC Power Politics

The International Mission Board convened this week in the Dallas/Fort Worth area for a trustee meeting. The Chairman of the Board for the past two years has been Dr. John Floyd, an administrator at Mid-America Seminary. Dr. Floyd was Chairman of the IMB Personnel Committee that introduced the policy changes for missionary candidates regarding baptism and a private prayer language, and he often publicly chided me for my blog. I felt I was keeping the Southern Baptist Convention informed of events occuring at the IMB, but obviously, he and others viewed it differently. Dr. Floyd believes that ministry matters involving the IMB should be dealt with behind closed doors, and the Southern Baptist Convention at large should not be informed of issues being dealt with by the board until after decisions have already been made. The notion that a blog would inform the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole of the issues, and the debate surrounding them, was anathema to certain trustees. One such trustee. a member of Dr. Floyd's generation, publicly informed the full board that she believed blogging was like 'internet porn,' an obvious indication she had never seen either.

The International Mission Board has been tightly and secretively controlled by a handful of trustees over the past few years, and the politics of getting additional like-minded trustees appointed to the IMB and elected to board leadership was often more manipulative than national politics. It is not widely known that the real control of the Southern Baptist Convention is not through the President of the SBC, but through the trustees who control the boards. I served six months on the International Mission Board of trustees (June 2005 - December 2006) before I ever began to blog. The reason I began to blog is because I saw trustees who were undermining the leadership and vision of the President of the International Mission Board, using power and control to silence dissent on the board, unfairly marginalizing those who dared to disagree, and ultimately attempting to remove anyone from staff positions or trustee positions that they could not control.

I'll give you one example. When trustee leadership, led by Dr. John Floyd, began to propose that new policies on private prayer language and baptism were needed, Dr. Rankin expressed his belief, in writing, that if the proposed policies being pushed by Dr. Floyd and his Personnel Committee were actually implemented they would be "detrimental to the unity and focus of the board." Dr. Rankin wrote a nine page letter on April 28, 2005 articulating his concerns and showing, point by point, why the proposed policies would create unnecessary difficulties for the Board. Dr. Rankin requested assurances that his letter be given 'appropriate consideration" and that his concerns "be communicated (to the board) constructively."

I do not know if Dr. Rankin was ever given any assurances, but his requests were not granted. I and other trustees did not find out about the President's letter till the fall of 2005, six months after it had been written, and it took a motion from this 'rookie' trustee (as Dr. Tom Hatley called me), to get the letter before the Board before the vote on the policies. My recommendation for the trustees to see the letter, a recommendation opposed by trustee leadership, barely passed during a lunch meeting of the full board, and when it did, we were told that we would be given the letter several hours later, after trustee leadership had an opportunity to prepare it for distribution. We did get the letter several hours later, with hand written notes from Dr. John Floyd scribbled all over it. Dr. Rankin's letter may be viewed here, exactly as we trustees received it, with Dr. Floyd's handwritten notes penned in the margins.

The notes that Dr. Floyd wrote speak for themselves. It illustrates the very thing I have said has been taking place for the past few years in the IMB and the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole. Ideological like-minded Southern Baptists are attempting to marginalize, and in some instances remove, those who disagree. To call the arguments and conclusions of the President of the IMB "ridiculous," "unscriptural," "illogical," and the like, is unconscionable conduct, particularly considering the timing of the release of the letter (right before a vote by the board on the policies).

I have a question. What is the difference between a blog that sways SBC opinion after the adoption of a policy, and Dr. Floyd who used his position to keep from the board of trustees valuable information in a letter from the President, only to release it when forced to do so, and then with handwritten criticisms all over the letter? The old way of keeping control by limiting the flow of information, stifling dissent, and ridiculing those who disagree is over. The Southern Baptist Convention needs and demands transparency, the free flow of information, the ability to dissent, and cooperation in the midst of differences on tertiary issues.

Our convention of cooperating churches is harmed over demands for a uniform, homogenous Baptist identity that some seek. In addition, agencies are harmed when there is never any true debate allowed among the trustees. To act as if God is only on one side of an issue, and it is 'our side,' is the heighth of spiritual arrogance. Unhindered and transparent debate keeps all Southern Baptists humble and honest. Southern Baptists better realize that the power of the gospel must not be replaced by the power politics of a Baptist identity religion.

Finally, I believe the letter above proves that the reason some don't like blogs is because they lose control of the both the amount and kind of information they wish released. The IMB President desired his letter to be communicated widely. Southern Baptists operate CHRISTIAN ministries, and Rankin's request for open communication is the mark of genuine, Christ-like leadership. The ability to debate issues among Southern Baptists with civility, cooperate with brothers holding to divergent views, and keep our focus on the gospel is the need of the hour. Hopefully, the new IMB Chairman, Paul Chitwood from Kentucky, will help the board keep the focus on the mission and purpose of the IMB and not digress into narrowing the doctrinal parameters of participation by adopting policies that exceed the BFM.

John 12:42 said that of the many who believed on Christ some "did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue." It is high time Southern Baptists become more concerned about cooperative missions than we are our fear of being branded or removed from denominational service by leaders who wish to define Baptist identity according to their narrow beliefs. In time, the SBC will be better because the pastors and churches who support her Cooperative Program speak up and speak out for cooperation and not against it.

In His Grace,


Wade

Great Struggles, Deep Irony, Significant Change

This past Sunday, April 6, 2008 marked the 146th anniversary of The Battle of Shiloh. This was the first major Civil War battle in the west, and opened the eyes of leaders on both sides of the War Between the States that the conflict would not be over quickly or easily. The battle commenced with a surprise attack by Confederate forces on Union soldiers under the command of Ulysses S. Grant encamped at Pittsburg Landing on the south bank of the Tennessee River in southwestern Tennessee.

Most of the soldiers who fought that day, on both sides, had little battle experience. They fought in the open field and exhibited remarkable steadiness and readiness to obey orders. The two-day battle was intense, bloody and costly. Eventually the Union soldiers held their battle lines and the Confederates withdrew. No pursuit was made or attempted. General Beauregard reported the Confederate losses at 10,699 captured, missing, wounded or killed. The loss of Union solders, according to Generals Grant and Buell were estimated at 15,000 killed, wounded, captured or missing.

Four things astound me about this battle. First, the battle is called Shiloh because of a little church in the open field, called Shiloh Church, around which the men fought and died. Second, Shiloh is a Hebrew word for "Peace," yet in this place of peace more men died than in all the previous United States wars combined. Third, a Christian officer and gentleman for the Confederates issued an order during a particularly gruesome slaughter of Union soldiers who were being led in a counter attack to thwart the Confederate advances on Union positions. The general cried about the gunfire, "Shoot them in the midsection so they can make peace with God." A soldier dies more slowly when shot in the stomach, and the General sincerely desired the Union boys to die "making peace with their Maker." Finally, Confederate General Albert Sydney Johnston died at the battle of Shiloh, the highest ranking officer on either side to die during the Civil War. General Johnston was a Christian, an evangelical, and according to President Jefferson Davis, the finest man he had ever had the privilege of knowing. Johnston had been shot in the leg and bled to death. The wound, superficial in Johnston's mind, had nicked an artery. The General would have lived with simple medical procedures to stop blood flow - but this Christian man had sent his physican to care for the Union; that's right, the enemy soldiers that were wounded.

When people today make a big deal about brothers being against brothers and the loss of Christian civility, I am reminded that great struggles, which ultimately bring about significant change, often present the deepest ironies.

In His Grace,

Wade

A Southern Baptist Chaplain Ministering Christ

As promised, the following is a brief history of an extraordinary, conservative Southern Baptist woman named Paige Heard. Paige is serving as a Regimental Army Chaplain at historic West Point Military Academy. Every Sunday Chaplain Heard can be heard preaching the gospel at 10:30 a.m. during the Protestant worship service at the beautiful West Point Military Academy Cadet Chapel.

Major Heard is a life-long Southern Baptist, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and New Orleans Seminary, and she has faithfully served Christ as a Southern Baptist endorsed United States Army Chaplain since 1996. Paige is a conservative Christian. She believes the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, and sufficient Word of God. Yet, she is now only one of five female Southern Baptist chaplains left in the United States Army. In 2004 the trustees of the North American Misson Board voted to stop endorsing female chaplains. Major Heard had been endorsed prior to the 2004 prohibition and was 'grandfathered' in.

Paige told me via phone that her heart "aches for the Southern Baptist Convention and the stance our convention has recently taken on women in missions and ministry." On the one hand Southern Baptist churches are training girls in G.A's (Girls in Action) and Acteens that they are to listen to the voice and calling of God and serve Him. Yet, when those same girls fulfill the call of God on their lives, the very Convention who trained them then turns their collective back on them. Paige said that she is thoroughly Baptist in conviction and as conservative as a Christian can be regarding the fundamentals of the faith and views on the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. She believes that conservative, gifted females are being pushed out of the Southern Baptist Convention into more liberal denominations because of the narrow views on women in ministry that are being pushed by some Southern Baptists.

Paige grew up in Peachtree City, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta and attended the First Baptist Church there. She was involved in G.A's, Acteens and as a young adult, Teen Missions International. She graduated from Auburn University and after college received her Master's of Biblical Arts at Dallas Theological Seminary. She attended DTS seminary to fulfill the education requirements for her calling as a chaplain. When she applied for the position as chaplain at a women's prison, the state of Georgia informed her that her home church needed to ordain her to meet the job qualifications. In 1989 the First Baptist Church of Peachtree City, Georgia, ordained Paige. When members of the congregation asked about the appropriateness of 'ordaining' a female, the pastor responded that the church was simply acknowledging the calling and gifts of a young lady they had known for more than two decades, and since 'ordination' was nowhere mentioned in Scripture, they would simply lay their hands on their member to set her apart to fulfill the call of God on her life - and that would suffice to meet the requirements of the state for her to obtain the job at the women's prison.

Five families left the church, but the majority of the conservative members supported the decision to set aside Paige Heard to Chaplain Ministry. Paige served as a Georgia State Prison Chaplain from 1990-1992, and then enrolled in New Orleans Seminary to obtain her Masters of Divinity Degree. In 1996 Paige joined the United States Army and has served the past ten years in active duty. The North American Mission Board endorsed Paige in 1996 as a chaplain for the U.S. Army. The trustees of the North American Mission Board voted in 2004 to stop endorsing female chaplains. As a result, there are only five women chaplains affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention who remain in the United States Army, including Paige.

It is interesting to note that the North American Mission Board had initially said they would not appoint 'ordained' women. But when they learned that the Army did not require ordination for a woman to serve as Chaplain, just an endorsement from NAMB, the trustees scrambled to stop the practice of endorsements in 2004. In explaining why the trustees would no longer endorse 'women' to be chaplains for the Army, the NAMB Chairman of the Trustee Board said, "we will not endorse a woman where the role and function of the chaplain would be seen the same as that of a pastor."

It can be argued that Chaplain Heard does not occupy the 'office' of pastor (as prohibited by the BFM), but it is quite certain that she fulfills the role of a pastor while carrying out her duties as a chaplain for the United States Army. Paige faithfully preaches the gospel every Sunday during the Protestant chapel service. She has had the privilege of leading over thirty men and women to faith in Christ during the past year and has baptized them all - some in makeshift baptistries in the deserts of Iraq. She administers the Lord's Supper and has performed wedding ceremonies, conducted funerals and provided encouragement and counseling to troops. She is highly respected among the troops. In fact, there are dozens upon dozens of individuals and families whose lives have been transformed by Southern Baptist Paige Heard fulfilling her calling as a chaplain to the United States Army.

In the comments to my post yesterday, one young male Southern Baptist pastor said that any female who functions in the role of a pastor is in 'rebellion to God.' The Bible compares rebellion to witchcraft (I Sam. 15:23). I served for over a decade on a law enforcement task force that investigated crimes that involved the occult, including that of witchcraft, satanism, and shamanism. I can say without equivocation that I've seen the black arts up close. To call a woman ministering the gospel of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Spirit, a person who is in 'rebellion to God' is an offense to those of us who understand what true rebellion to God is all about.

I imagine it is also an offense to those whose lives who have been transformed through the ministry of Southern Baptist United States Army Chaplain Paige Heard.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Those Who Make the BFM Say What It Doesn't

H.G. Wells once said, "I write as straight as I can, just as I walk as straight as I can, because that is the best way to get there." The best way to get to an understanding of the role of women in the SBC should be the straighforward wording of the Southern Baptist Convention's Confession of Faith. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message makes the following statement about women under Article VI entitled 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."

This statement is clear. Whether or not one agrees with the premise, it should be granted that the 2000 BFM prohibits women from serving in the office of pastor ; which is defined in Article VI as an office within a church. There is no prohibition regarding women serving as Hebrew professors at our seminaries; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Vice-Presidents or even Presidents of our Southern Baptist agencies; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Strategy Cordinators with the International Mission Board; there is no prohibition regarding women teaching men; and as and there is no prohibition regarding women serving as chaplains. The only confessional prohibition is that women cannot serve in the 'office of pastor.'

The 2000 BFM Committee also used clear language to express their belief in the possible fallibility (error) of their interpretations of the sacred text. The 2000 BFM Committee displayed the same humble approach that the 1925 and 1963 Committees exhibited in acknowledging their ability to err in interpretating biblical doctrines - while at the same time believing the Bible itself is without error. This acknowledgment is spelled out in in their report to the 2000 Southern Baptist Convention:

As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time. Any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so. The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

If this generation of Southern Baptists does not understand the significance of such humble language and experience heartfelt gratitude for it, there will one day arise another generation who will express appreciation that their Southern Baptist forefathers had such wisdom. All Southern Baptists readily concede that unless the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is revised, women are officially prohibited from serving in the 'office of pastor' within a church that wishes to cooperate with other Southern Baptists churches or be identified with the Southern Baptist Convention. My goal is neither to revise or amend the 2000 BFM; I desire to show Southern Baptists how the phrase 'office of pastor' has now been taken by hard-line complementarians in the Southern Baptist Convention and used as the basis for the removal of women from performing any Christian function or ministry that involves men. These ministries from which Southern Baptist women have been prohibited include, but are not limited to, the 'indulgence' of exegeting Scripture in the presence of men, participating in any public leadership or administration of the ordinances with men present, and serving in Southern Baptist positions or jobs that require supervision of men. Integrity demands that we Southern Baptist should say what we mean. The intentional and clear phrase 'office of pastor' means what it says. To now use it to justify the complete removal of Southern Baptist women from any ministry involving men is both deceptive and unacceptable.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Southern Baptists, including Dorothy Patterson, Al Mohler, Danny Akin and others, serve on the Board of Directors of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. There are some fine men and women across the evangelical spectrum who serve on the board of directors, council and board of reference of CBMW. They write some excellent articles and materials from a complementarian perspective, and I have profited from them. I am grateful for Christians like those who serve on the Council, including the Southern Baptists named above, because they think seriously about such issues as manhood and womanhood and write for the profit of others. There are as many other conservative, evangelical men and women who write for Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization that holds to egalitarianism, and I have profited from their scholarly approach to biblical manhood and womanhood as well. Contrary what some assert, not only is it possible for a conservative, Bible-believing Christian to hold to egalitarianism. thousands of inerrantists do.

It is interesting to me, however, that complementarians often seem to lack either consensus or precision related to the question of whether or not it is only the senior pastor position that is banned for women. Hard-line complementarians on the CBMW have not reached a consensus with softer complementarians on whether or not women can lead worship, serve on pastoral staffs, teach men in the academic setting, etc . . . Unfortunately, it seems as if those advocating the hard-line complementarian position, which limits women far beyond the role of 'pastor' or 'elder,' may be currently winning the day at CBMW. I would love to be proven wrong by the CBMW revealing publicly which ministries they believe to be barred to women, with clear biblical warrants given. Otherwise, the kingdom is harmed by a kind of blanket discouragement for women to think of themselves as being able to minister according to their gifts, or to pursue ministry positions within the church other than the 'office of pastor.'

It is time that we Southern Baptists recognized that there may be a few people in leadership positions within our Convention who would seek to force upon the convention things regarding women that we have never offically adopted - like prohibitions on missionaries possessing a private prayer language, or prohibitions on women teaching Hebrew in our seminaries, or prohibitions on women serving as chaplains, etc . . . In my next post (I'm still researching for it) I will tell you the story of Regimental Army Chaplain, Major Paige Heard, who is now stationed at historic West Point Military Academy. Major Heard is a life-long Southern Baptist, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, New Orleans Seminary, and has faithfully served Christ as an endorsed chaplain of the Southern Baptist Convention. Paige is a conservative. She believes the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and sufficient. Yet, she is now only one of five female Southern Baptist chaplains left in the Army. In 2004 the trustees of the North American Misson Board voted to stop endorsing female chaplains. Major Heard had been endorsed prior to the 2004 prohibition and was 'grandfathered' in.

Ironically, the North American Mission Board in 2003 had initially said they would not 'ordain' women. But when they learned that the Army did not require ordination for a woman to serve as Chaplain, just an endorsement from NAMB, the trustees scrambled to stop the endorsements in 2004. In explaining why the trustees would no longer endorse 'women' to be chaplains for the Army, the NAMB Chairman of the Trustee Board said, "we will not endorse a woman where where the role and function of the chaplain would be seen the same as that of a pastor."

Do you notice the difference in language? The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message prohibits a woman from 'the office of pastor' in the local church. Somebody, somewhere, drove the NAMB trustees in 2004 to change the prohibition from 'office' to 'function' or 'ministry.' Now, a Southern Baptist woman, according to those who wish to force this narrow view on the rest of us, cannot minister or serve in any manner that might smack of what a pastor might do. As in . . .

(1). Indulging in the exposition of Scripture with men present.
(2). Having 'authority' over men in ministry.
(3). Leading men to faith in Jesus Christ.
(4). Leading in the observing of the ordinances in the presence of men.
(5). Leading worship in a worship service with men present.
(6). Teaching Christian history to men who will be pastors.
(7). Teaching anything spiritual to a boy over the age of twelve.

At the rate we are going to have some leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention who may very well take this prohibition of women holding the 'office of pastor' and do something ridiculous like establish a homemaking program at a seminary to teach women to sew, cook, clean, iron, etc . . . since they are prohibited from doing anything else in terms of ministry. Oh, wait, that's already happening.

More Monday.

Wade Burleson

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.

The Contaminated Pulpit and Other Weird Things

Prior to the vote for adoption of the BFM 2000 I had written a couple of open letters that were published in our state Baptist paper.

The letters articulated my feelings that the proposed confession contained a couple of tertiary, non-essential doctrines - including the prohibition of women 'Senior Pastors' - that should never have been placed there by the BFM committee in the first place.

I explained that the Baptist Faith and Message, the only statement of doctrinal consensus that defined the parameters of our missionary cooperation, should only focus on the essentials of our faith and Baptist identity.

There is no position of "Senior Pastor" mentioned in the Bible. There are hundreds of Baptist women who teach, shepherd, and disciple both men and women, particularly in overseas cultures where Christian leadership is all about humble service and giftings and not gender. The Bible does not prohibit women from teaching men the Scriptures.

The BFM 2000 prohibition against "women serving as Senior Pastors" seemed to me to be very Western (cultural) and extra-biblical requirement. Nevertheless, when it came time to vote for the 2000 BFM I voted for its adoption, believing that the prohibition statement was really not that big of a deal.

Little did I realize at the time that there was a movement beginning in the far right of the SBC to exclude women from ALL ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Some Southern Baptists leaders like Paige Patterson believe that any ministry conducted by women that involves 'teaching' men (over the age of 12) or having 'authority over men' should be universally prohibited.

 The BFM 2000 was used as the basis for this removal of women from their God-called, Spirit-led ministries, even though the BFM only prevented women from serving as 'Senior Pastors'.

Illustrations of the Effects of the SBC Move Against Women

In 2004 Dr. Karen Bullock, a conservative scholar and an acclaimed author, was removed from her position as Professor of Church History at Southwestern Theological Seminary.

At the time, Dr. Bullock, a member of the SWBTS faculty since 1994, was one of the more popular Southwestern professors and also served as the Assistant Dean of the School of Theology. Dr. Bullock was removed from her position only because she was female. It is widely believed that Dr. Bullock delivered one of the greatest chapel talks (i.e. 'sermons') in the history of Southwestern Theological Seminary. The tape has since been removed from Southwestern's archives, but we intend to post the audio in the next few weeks.

Here's where it get's bizarre.

The pulpit from behind which Dr. Bullock spoke was eventually removed from Southwestern's chapel under orders of the new President of SWBTS, Dr. Paige Patterson.

Dr. Patterson explained to those he had to remove it because "it had been contaminated by a woman preaching behind it." 

Though the rumor persisted that the historic pulpit had been taken out and burned, the truth is far less dramatic. It remains hidden behind stacks of supplies in a closet at the seminary's library, never having seen the light of day since its removal.

The forced exit of Dr. Bullock had been preceded in 2001 by the removal of Dr. David Crutchley from his position as the Dean of the School of Theology. Crutchley was the man that had recommended the trustees hire Dr. Bullock.

In addition, Dr. Kenneth Hemphill, President of Southwestern Theological Seminary, was eventually forced out when he saw the handwriting on the wall. A Tenure Review Committee, formed by SWBTS trustees and VP Craig Blaising, opposed Dr. Hemphill's Presidential recommendation that Dr. Karen Bullock should be given tenure.

Though Dr. Hemphill called his eventual departure an 'early retirement', it is obvious through his correspondence to the Tenure Review Committee that there was a sharp disagreement over the denial of tenure to Dr. Karen Bullock, and of course, Dr. Hemphill went to work for the Executive Committee in Nashville making for a very short 'early' retirement.

When Dr. Paige Patterson was hired to replace Dr. Hemphill one of his first acts was to hire David Allen (who just happened to be the SWBTS trustee who chaired the board meeting at which Patterson was hired).

The chairman of the search committee, Dr. Denny Autrey, was also elevated to a top post in the Patterson administration.

Of course, it is now a matter of sworn testimony that Dr. Patterson also orchestrated the removal of Dr. Sheri Klouda, the Professor of Hebrew in the School of Theology at SWBTS, solely because of her gender. Dr. Patterson says he believed he was simply fulfilling the wishes of the Southern Baptist Convention and the BFM 2000 'prohibition' of women pastors by removing Dr. Klouda.

To believe this, you must overlook the fact that Southwestern itself trained Klouda in the Hebrew language, awarding her the Ph.D.. And for you to accept her removal as justified, you must agree with the statement that her being hired to teach Hebrew was 'a momentary lapse of parameters'.

The real issue is that men who are now in charge at Southwestern don't want women around.

As recently as the fall of 2006, a professor at SWBTS refused to allow three female Master of Divinity students to 'preach' with males present. All male Master of Divinity students were told not to come to the class the day the females were to 'preach,' and even the professor himself sent his wife to 'listen' to the women 'indulge in the exposition' of Scripture.

It has long been known that there have been attempts by trustees at the International Mission Board to remove any woman from a 'position of authority' within the organization. It is a known fact that there is not one female Regional Leader and that there are less than a handful of Strategy Coordinators at the International Mission Board who are female - and their positions are in jeopardy. In addition, there is no female on the Executive Team at the Administration Offices - except the secretary who is there to take notes.

Not all IMB trustees have been involved with the effort to minimize roles, and maybe IMB Executive Staff should share the responsibility for the reduced role of women within the IMB, but I find it hard to fault them because of their fear of reprisal for going against trustee leadership desires.

In early 2006 I confronted a small group of male trustees led by Bill Sutton, the hunting friend of Paige Patterson, and Bob Pearle, the pastor of Paige Patterson, who were discussing how to remove the woman who was the acting Vice-President of the International Mission Board. I overheard a late night meeting between these men and another eight to ten trustees in the lobby of the hotel where we IMB trustees were being housed.

This 'informal' caucus of men was discussing how to remove the Vice-President from her position and the steps needed to accomplish their goal. The sentiment was expressed that a woman had no place being in this particular position of authority. After listening to just a minute or two of their discussion I went upstairs to get a couple of friends to act as witnesses. I then came back down to the lobby and confronted the trustees. I let them know, in no uncertain terms, that not only was their meeting a violation of our 'Blue Book' which stated that during regularly scheduled IMB trustee meetings no trustees shall meet in 'caucus' sessions, either formal or informal, to discuss IMB business and that the opinions I had overheard expressed in that caucus meeting about women were a violation of Christian charity, not to mention Scripture.

The morning after the late night confrontation, I went to the female Vice-President and Dr. Rankin and told them that there might be a move designed to either publicly humiliate or remove the Vice-President from her 'acting' position.

I told them both that if it came in the plenary session, as I had heard discussed, to not worry - I would not let her be mistreated. It was in that particular January trustee meeting in 2006 that the motion came to move into Executive Session (closed doors). I was seated on the front row and asked the Chairman, Tom Hatley, why we were moving into Executive Session.

He did not answer me, and so I turned to my friend Rick Thompson, pastor of Council Road Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, and said, "Rick, get ready, they are going after Wendy. I'm not going to let them. This could get heated.".

Once the doors were closed I heard the motion . . . "I move that Wade Burleson be removed from the International Mission Board for . . .". Rick and I looked at each other in disbelief and shock.

Then I knew.

The system established years ago for the appointment of trustees enabled our boards and agencies to be filled with only like-minded Southern Baptists who would elect trustee leaders that had a particular ideology. I don't know if it should be called 'Fundamentalism'...maybe not.

One thing is for sure; in this closed system, no dissent or questioning is allowed. We must find some way as Southern Baptists to end our narrowness on certain issues or we are going to lose the blessing of experiencing the gifts and talents of the women in our convention who are filled with the love of Christ.

The Issue Is Not About Women Senior Pastors

In a convention where a macho President can carry shotguns onto the lawn of one of our seminaries and fire rounds at squirrels in trees (as happened last Friday), and in a convention that often resembles the soap opera 'Dallas' where gas wells are being drilled in the old RV parking lot to supplement seminary income (as it is at SWBTS), and in a convention where the indoctrination of future pastors includes the teaching that the only rightful place of women is in the home as a homemaker, and in a convention that continues to fund degrees in homemaking for women at institutions that used to be known for great classical, pastoral training, and in a convention that sometimes seems really scared to simply let the sisters function, it is time we took a very hard look at the direction we are heading. And, it has nothing to do with 'Senior Pastors' being women.

For a long while, I have justified my participation in the Conservative Resurgence as a desire to keep our convention committed to the sacred, infallible word of God. I really did believe we were battling for the Bible. And though I could not see in the Bible where there was any direct 'prohibition' against women pastors, I was willing to let that slide because I am not personally bothered by the prohibition.

To me, there were more important matters, and I was not interested in making the removal of this prohibition an issue. However, now that I have seen that the SBC is moving further and further to the right by trustees adding ADDITIONAL restrictions and ADDITIONAL prohibitions THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE, I now know that something needs to be done and I cannot be silent. If it seems to you that I am advocating women pastors, you are dead wrong. I am speaking out because I am seeing the prohibition against women pastors as a smoke screen for other activities within the SBC that are both unjustifiable and illogical.

Women are being removed as SBC professors.
Women are being removed from the SBC classrooms.
Women are being removed from serving as SBC administrators.
Women are being removed as SBC strategic coordinators on the mission field.

All this under the justification that the BFM says women shall not be 'Senior Pastors'. What? How do the above positions fall under the category of 'Senior Pastor'? The BFM doesn't say women can't serve in these areas!

I have an observation: to remove women from being SBC professors, students, missionaries, and administrators, all because the BFM 2000 says they can't serve in those positions is as dishonest as someone acting as if the BFM 2000, the only consensus doctrinal statement of the SBC, prohibits people from serving as missionaries who pray in a private prayer language. Oh, wait, that's already being done.

Wake up, people.

Men Pastors, Women Directors: What's Different?

A Southern Baptist friend who has an earned doctorate in pyschoogy, and who will on ocassion email me with some very perceptive thoughts, sent me the following email this past Friday regarding an inconsistency he sees in Southern Baptist churches regarding their ministerial staffs. Read on . . .

It does not bother me that some Southern Baptist churches believe that women should not be in ministerial staff positions. But what does bother is the inconsistency these churches display. For instance, when a male is available (and the budget allows) the church calls this male as a children's pastor or youth pastor or associate pastor. But when a female is available (and there's not as much money in the budget) then they call this female to the same position as "Director of (blank)" instead of 'pastor' or 'minister'.

Same job description, same expectations, same everything except title (and salary).

Please show some consistency! Either stick with your professed position of only men can be ministers or admit that you really believe it's okay for women to perform ministerial duties. Changing the title AND NOTHING ELSE (except of course the salary) doesn't magically change the ministerial activities performed.

AND... I'm not buying the "authority over women/children is acceptable" as an argument. A good children's pastor ministers to the parents just as much as he does to the children. And how do you minister just to wives without also coming in contact with husbands?

Again, I may not agree with the idea that women cannot serve as ministers; but I can at least respect those churches who are consistent in their views. Inconsistency leads me to believe the church is more concerned with keeping costs down than with interpretation of scripture.

Until we finish with the guest series on women in ministry by our soon to be named graduate of Southwestern Theological Seminary, I think it is good to throw in a few thoughts, like the excellent one above, to help us see the practical implications of our Biblical views on women and their ministry in the local church.

In His Grace,

Wade

On Blacks and Women the SBC Is Not Innocent

There have been a few attempts by Southern Baptists to propose Judge McBryde's granting of Southwestern's motion to dismiss the Klouda lawsuit was a ruling of innocence on Southwestern's part. Anyone who attempts to cast such conclusions reveals a lack of understanding of the legal system or an inherent bias. For instance, one such writer concludes:

And, now, even after our legal system has definitively weighed in the balance of justice Professor Klouda’s case against Dr. Patterson and our esteemed institution, finding them innocent . . .

Whether this writer is an expert on the legal system and offering a consistent expert opinion or is infected with an inherent bias against Sheri Klouda and those who have sought to protect her can be discerned in the nouns the writer uses to describe myself and other supporters of Dr. Klouda (i.e. "jesters," "clowns," "a foot shy of moral antinoniasm,"producers of political porn"). I learned a long time ago that calling people names is bad, but not being able handle being called names is worse. I welcome the verbal abuse if it is thrown my way because of my assistance of the Sheri Klouda family.

But the point of this post is to correct the wrong conclusions of innocence on Southwestern's part. The judge simply ruled that discrimination based upon gender is protected by the First Amendment which separates church and state. In other words, a church can discriminate against women because of 'religious beliefs' and the courts cannot, according to the judge's interpretation of the United States Constitution, punish the church. That is the judge's ruling and I accept it. I don't, however, accept that discrimination against women is acceptable in the Southern Baptist Convention, nor is it a part of our belief system. The courts said they WOULD NOT intervene. That ruling simply stokes the fire for those of us who see that change is needed. We are Southern Baptists and we must do even more to change things. Let me show you what I mean.

A few years ago a pulpit committee in Mississippi expressed a desire to visit with me about being their pastor. I called a previous pastor of that church and asked him to tell me a little about the church. The pastor said the people are great and the church has huge potential, but there was something that bothered him. While he was pastor, there was discussion about bringing a black man on staff. A couple of deacons in the church came to the pastor and said, "We don't need a n____ on staff." The prejudice against blacks is not an official position of the Southern Baptist Convention - now. But as I have shown you before, Southern Baptists argued for a very long time that blacks were inferior to the white race and they had no business being considered equals. It took activists continually working toward reform to bring not only the Southern Baptist Convention, but eventually the United States Constitution, to recognize the equality of blacks.

The same, archaic view of women seems to be prevalent within the Southern Baptist Convention. It is a view that relegates women to an inferior status to men. People do not like to hear the issue stated so bluntly as in the sentence above, and will do everything within their power to shape the argument to something other than 'inferiority' - just as Southern Baptists did in decades past regarding blacks. For instance, it is argued that the physical differences with women are obvious, and as a result, they are different but equal. I am reminded that Southern Baptists used to point to the skin color of black men 150 years ago and used it as the basis for the 'different and UNEQUAL' view of blacks. In other words, 'different but equal' is at times nothing but a euphemism for 'different and unequal.' When TREATMENT of a person differs from that of a white man in the same position, then you have a 'different but unequal' mentality. Ask yourself a question: What two groups of people have been discriminated against in the Southern Baptist Convention solely because of who they are? Blacks and women. Adulterers, homosexuals, child molestors, etc . . . are rightfully discriminated against because of WHAT THEY DO.

Someone shouts, "Object!" We are not discriminating against women because of who they are. We discriminate against them in terms of what they can and cannot do! We are saying women can't teach men, women can't be in a position of authority over a man, women can't lead men, women can't teach men Hebrew, women can't be Vice-President of the IMB, women can't be . . . . Why not? Some will say, "Because the Bible says so." I say emphatically, categorically, unequivocably, and passionately - IT DOES NOT. Now, let us debate the issue - but recognize the implications for those of you who wish to relegate women to a 'position of inferiority to men.' You will be discriminating against women. Period. No matter how you spin it, you are discriminatory on the basis of gender.

The United States government, through the courts of the land, says that a church can discriminate against a woman because of its religious beliefs. They will not interfere. The United State's Constitution forbids interference. But the courts, unlike blog writers who pontificate differently, did not declare Southwestern INNOCENT of discrimination. It simply said 'churches' can discriminate on the basis of gender. The solution to skirting the laws of discrimination in this land is to somehow figure out how to get your institution or business to be recognized as a church and then terminate any competent person on the basis that she is a female. You will NOT be innocent of discrimination. You will be free from the long reach of federal laws that prevent it.

Blessings,

Wade