"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

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,



Steve said...

I had noticed this too. I figured it was just because sometimes the person wasn't ordained and was just hired out of the congregation. How often are children's ministry staffers hired from out-of-town applications?

Bob Cleveland said...

I'm no "me-me-me", but this has been a sore point with me for years.

Our church has reportedly had some people leave since we called a lady as worship leader. And worship has been off the charts ever since she's been leading.

But I must say: consistency? What a laugh ... I mean, just look at the old Baptist one-liner "Let's all stand and sing the first, second, and fourth stanzas of "Take Time To Be Holy".

Bill said...

Ditto. I brought this up in the last comment stream. When we opened up deacon elections to women in our church, the people who opposed it said it was ok for women to do the "deacony" stuff. We just shouldn't call them deacons. Is God fooled by that?

Chris Harbin said...

The only thing it protects are male egos, unless you include a sense of "I know I am wrong, but I don't really want to admit it."

When will we recognize that Jesus did not establish a hierarchy system of authority and power. Greatness in Christ's Reign was always defined as dying to self in service of others. Differing pay scales do not speak to a question of Biblical injuctions against women in ministry. They speak to an underlying sense that we actually value women less than men. The title issue is identical, even if not quite as clear.

John said...

Is this any more inconsistent than a pastor who believes in complementarianism, but does not practice it in his church?

John said...

Errr -
Edit that, should read

"Is this any more inconsistent than a pastor who believes in *egalitarianism*, but does not practice it in his church?"

Pamela said...

A lot of these churches (SBC and otherwise) that preach that women cannot preach to men, be pastors, etc. are more than willing to send women to do these very things across the waters. That is another hypocritical thing I have noticed with friends of mine that have been a part of churches that do this. One I'm thinking about is not a SBC church but another kind of Baptist (don't remember the name). It also appears that there is indeed religious discrimination when women can do the same job as men but not get recognized. What is the difference of that happening in the church and anywhere else? People may rightly be concerned at the equal rights amendment because of extremes BUT one of the main reasons this was brought up in the first place is because of unfair employment practices.

There is no difference other than those leaders refuse to treat women equally. God help women in those churches like that. I will NEVER become a part of a church body that views me as a second class citizen. I grew up in a denomination where if women did preach the pulpit was beneath where the pulpit would be when men preached. That was past disgusting to me. I knew at 17 to get out of that denomination never to return. Jesus views me as equal to men. I refuse to let those type of men to be that condescending, especially in the name of God.

Wade Burleson said...


I think you ask a good question. But, think through the implications of it.

How do you 'practice' eschatology? I think you might come up with some answers, but eschatological practices are nebulous - therefore, there can be great disagreement in the theology of eschatology - but very little difference in practice as it affects the Christian's walk. Eschatology is NOT an essential of the faith. It is a tertiary issue. Most churches can get along with people believing different things.

Women ministering in the church (complementarianism vs. egalitarianism) is also a tertiary issue in my opinion, though others have sought to make it a secondary issue. All are in agreement that it is NOT an essential of the faith. YET, what makes this tertiary issue so polarizing is that people who say they are complementarians, practice egalitarianism - except in the titles and pay of the women they hire. Other complementarians like me, don't care one iota about the titles and definitely want to pay women according to their worth.

So, you may so it is 'inconsistent' to be a complementarian and not PRACTICE it. I say, on tertiary issues like this one, don't worry about the PRACTICE - just do the work of the ministry, share Christ, love people, respect gifts, treat everyone the same, and you may just be surprised that the theology behind the ministry is not near as important as actually doing the ministry.

And before somebody jumps up and down screaming "Theology IS important" let me be quick to say that it IS IMPORTANT regarding the fundamentals - after that, it is more important loving people and DOING the ministry than acting as if everybody else in the world is blind to the tertiary truths that God has revealed to you.

Make sense?

believer333 said...

I suspect that some churches do not give the women the same titles in order to be able to allow the women to serve. A local church dispensed with all titles (except the pastor's) so that they could have the women do more ministry work and still not offend the denominational restrictions. If they had offended the denominational restrictions they might not have received the financial assistance they desperately needed.

John said...


It is my genuine hope that you and your church had a great Lord's day. I prayed for both you and your church.

I've got just a few minutes before I have to go to a service for our nursing home, so I'll be brief & just address one issue - the thesis that women are given the title of "director" so that they can do the same job as a pastor, but receive less pay.

I'm curious if the author could provide examples of this.

Honestly, I am familiar with only one church that employs people as "directors." They are a larger church, and have a board of pastors, who over see "directors" who are tasked with very specific ministerial tasks.
The pastors, while given an emphasis in one part of the church's ministry, are nonetheless responsible for the church at large, so you will find them doing hospital visits, preaching, and assisting the lead pastor with vision and implementation.
The directors work under the auspices of the pastors, and focus on just one aspect of the church's ministry (so the Youth Pastor would have oversight over the director of nursery, director of children, director of youth.)
These directors are both men and women, laymen and ordained, yet every person's pay is governed by the church's employment guidelines, meaning that every person from janitor to lead pastor is paid based upon tenure, and several other factors that escape me at the moment.

In my church, I am the only pastor, and I have oversight over three directors (2 men, 1 woman) - music, Sunday school, and children these are all voluntiers, so obviously there is no pay inequity between how we pay our directors.

I guess I'm having a hard time agreeing with the author's point, because I have never seen such a situation. I have no doubt that it happens, but at the same time I have a hard time believing that EVERY church that employs female "directors" are doing so for disingenuous reasons.

Every church that I have been a part of that utilized directors had very specific tasks laid out for them - assistance to the pastor. And none of them had any salary inequities between directors of different genders.

Honestly I think the author of this post assumes too much.

Alright, I'm off to the nursing home. With your permission I would also like to address what seems to me an inconsistency with your position as it relates to your practice later on tonight.

Anonymous said...

The place of women in the church, or anywhere, can be a secondary or tertiary issue for men. But how can it be less than a primary issue for women, especially if they are called to serve in a way the men don't want them to?

It may not be an essential of the faith in the way belief in Jesus is, but it's important to half the human race.

It's true that a person can be a Christian and believe that women are inferior, just as a they can be racist, believe in slavery, or be one or more of various kinds of sinner. For that matter, some say you can't be a Christian and a Democrat, but that's another can of worms we don't want to open.

But to go back to the idea of the post: It's apparently ok for women to do all sorts of things that men don't want to be bothered with or don't have time to do, just as long as the women don't get credit or a title for doing it.
Doesn't seem very Christian to me, but what to I know, since I'm a woman?


Lin said...

Does this show how worldly we have become? How much we have attached to 'titles' that are meaningless. It is the function that is important.

Just for Grins...I sometimes wonder if they went around calling each other 'Elder Apollos', 'Pastor Diotrephes'. Perhaps they called Lydia-Lady who has church in home but who is only a spectator in worship. ;O)

Phoebe is a 'servant' while Philemon (example only) is a Deacon. (That sort of thing?)

Come to think of it, when they met at Lydia's house, I wonder if they had to wait until the 'pastor' was there before they could do any worship corporately. Who was the pastor of her home church?

It is also curious if Phoebe was allowed to tell the church on her travels about what the Lord was doing in her home church and visa versa? I wonder if she was allowed because that could be considered teaching/preaching. And we know that Paul would want her to be silent in all the churches.

Anonymous said...

This subject still misses the point. Women that work too close with other male ministers can create a problem. The Old Testement sets the precident with Levites and Paul tends to follow that idea in the New with some flexibility. It is not normative but it should not be legalistic either way. Solve the problem lead men and mentor the males. We need to quit sitting back aweing the fact that woman may actually be very well versed in the Scripture.

Anonymous said...

"The place of women in the church, or anywhere, can be a secondary or tertiary issue for men. But how can it be less than a primary issue for women, especially if they are called to serve in a way the men don't want them to?"

Well, Susie, the premise is that the Lord would never call you to do anything except marry, have children (for your protection, of course) and make casseroles. You can teach children but up to what age you can teach male children, we are not sure. Haven't you seen these specific roles in scripture for all women? They must be in there...everyone keeps telling us so. You have a layer between you and Christ that you must obey. Your spiritual growth can only be to his level and NO more. He is your earthly priest. But, you ARE equal in everyway except you MUST stick with your specific roles that are somewhere in scripture.

See, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are limited for women. You do not have all the gifts today even though we see examples of it scripture for women. You must not question this or you are in rebellion to those in 'authority' over you. And we all know that if you teach men, then homosexuals will flood your church and demand to be ordained. It is ONLY when women teach men that we see this happen.

You need to understand that the 'authority' now comes from the title of the messenger and NOT the Word. It is very important 'who' is teaching not 'what' they teach. See, women are easily deceived and cannot be trusted with the Word when it comes to teaching men.

They can only be trusted to teach children's bible stories and other deceived women. It is ok if they deceive them. That is what Paul was talking about. Only men are allowed to be false teachers.

Oh, and Susie, church history proves this is the correct view.


Bowden McElroy said...


Re: Comment #10. I'm the author of the email to Wade. (Even though I don't have a doctorate... I keep telling him and he keeps getting it wrong). Had I known he was going to reprint the email I would have attempted to be more precise.

I have seen "some" churches do this. I did not mean to imply every church that has directors does this. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my point.

The church I am currently a member of replaced the male children's pastor with a female director when the children's pastor was called to another church. The inconsistency is that most of our church members would say women should not be pastors, yet they have no problem with a women doing the exact same thing a pastor was doing only a few months ago.

Two of the last three churches I served as an interim faced this decision. One reasoned "pastor" and "director" were different animals (even though the expectations and job description were unchanged).

The other church decided to be consistent and call a male to be a part of the pastoral staff.

Is it a wide spread problem? I have no idea. I just know that it bothers me when I see it.

Anonymous said...

Lucy, is making casseroles in the Bible? If not, maybe we shouldn't be doing it.

Now the Bible does tell us that we are not to wear pearls or gold or have braided hair. That's in the same chapter as the verse about not teaching or having authority over a man, so it must be just as valid. Guess I'll have to get rid of some jewelry. Wonder if silver is ok. Probably some male authority can tell us. Maybe one of those men who lifts holy hands in prayer (same chapter). As long as he didn't sin by giving his silent wife a gold wedding ring.
But maybe I'm ok since I can be saved through childbearing, which I've done. (same chapter).

I hope church history isn't totally accepted as proof. It has some pretty bad stuff. Even the
SBC isn't perfect (Heresy!) since it was started over slavery, much as many don't want to admit it.


John said...

Bowden -

Fair enough.

While I have not seen the specific problems that you have encountered, I have come across many problems related to ecclesiology. Sadly, in many ways it has become the black sheep in our theology. In this area we have embaraced a "what works" mentality, and it has led to many problems. If I had to wager a guess, it probably is the root cause of this one as well.

John Fariss said...

Dear Bowden and John (everybody, but those two especially),

When I came to the church I currently serve, there was a paid "director of children and youth" who was female. In all candor, it was not an attempt to circumvent anything on the church's part. The church had sought a Youth Minister in vain, and finally a very gifted and talented lady in the church, who was a professional in children's work (in the secular world) came foreward and offered to take the position; however she was unwilling to be called a "minister" in the vocational sense because she did not percieve a calling into the ministry. Of course, you could argue (or at least ask) her what the difference was, but at this point, that is a tangent.

She left for another position (in a day care facility), and we began to search for a youth MINISTER again. The Lord led us to a wonderful young lady who felt called into the youth ministry. The church called her, with the title "youth minister." The church was happy with this. But you know something interesting? No matter what we tell them, send them, or how many times we try to correct it--everything from our Association comes back listing her as "youth director." Hmmm. . . . .

Anonymous said...

Wade –

Ever since reading yesterday’s post, and one of your comments in it, I have felt a bit unsettled. Then after reading today’s post on inconsistencies on how we practically work out our theologies, I began to understand why.

In your post from yesterday, you stated:

“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.”

Then in the comments you wrote:

“my personal prohibition of women senior pastors is only personal, cultural and confessional - I see NO such prohibition in Scripture.”

Let me ask you, what makes discrimination [your word] against women for theological reasons so horribly wrong – a kin to slavery. While discrimination against women on the basis of personal, cultural, and confessional beliefs is OK? Do you not see a glaring inconsistency here? No matter where this doctrine falls on the scale of theological triage, there is an inconsistency none the less. If Dr. Patterson had said that he denied Dr. Klouda tenure for “personal, cultural and confessional” reasons, would you have been OK with that?

If not, why are you OK with that in your church?

Let’s not forget that a cooperation like the SBC will never exceed the expectations that individual churches place on themselves.

That will be the last question here from me. I am now off to instruct our Sunday school teachers in our child protection policies. I’ll be away from the computer for the next day or so, so I will leave the last word with you.

John said...

Shoot, sorry, the blogger program glitched. That last comment was from me.

Jon L. Estes said...

Where I serve the only person who carries the title of "pastor" is the senior pastor. All other staff, regardless of gender is Minister of __________ .

I fall into the category where I see two offices in the church, pastor (senior)and deacon.

The money allotted is set for all, no matter who ends up serving in any ministry position.

Jon L. Estes said...


We do know from scripture that many of the letters written by Paul began with his title.

I don't know what others called him if you can find out, let us know.

Few people call me pastor, some do, most don't. But as I told them when I came on board, I am "just" the pastor. Of course I remind all my staff of this concerning their position often. I do it for the purpose not to get forgetful that we are no better, maybe more accountable, but no better.

Wade Burleson said...


I have chosen to remain Southern Baptist - and that is why I accept the confessional prohibitions even though I voted against the proposal 8 years ago. A convention ends up dying when you narrow things so tightly that people end up leaving. I'm not there yet.

Your question reveals that you must not be a Southern Baptist. That, of course, is fine, since there are many wonderful other evangelical denominations, but as I said, I have chosen to be Southern Baptist. I am arguing for change - but for that to come it must be from within.



traveller said...


One of the things the Holy Spirit has worked in my life is concerning the substance of the point you make about this not being a tertiary issue for women, only men. And while I find Lucy's satirical humor funny, it also breaks my heart because I know that this reflects great hurt and pain that men do not truly value and recognize the gifting of the Spirit in women.

As a man, may I encourage to find followers of Jesus who will accept you as the person Father created you to be and join them exercising those gifts. These people do exist and would welcome you with open arms. This may mean you must look outside the SBC.

And, I ask that you forgive us for our sin against you. Many men will be quite surprised on the day they stand before God and have to answer for this sin, which is ultimately against God himself.

Charmona said...

Anon wrote "This subject still misses the point. Women that work too close with other male ministers can create a problem." What could you possibly mean by this?????????? Are you aware that at least two of the past "big name" ministers caught with their pants down had them down with a same gendered person? The Biblical writer James says that folks who give in to temptations due so b/c their own desires lure them to do so. So, please, please, don't put someone else's weakness as a block to my fulfilling my God given assignment in this world. That is a laughable objection ( if I understood you correctly to suggest this.)


believer333 said...

“This subject still misses the point. Women that work too close with other male ministers can create a problem.”

I doubt that it would be the woman creating the “problems”. This presupposes that women are “problems” and their presence, their work, their words, etc. are problems to men.

That is the attitude that we should all have a "problem" with.

Steve said...

I do believe Lucy, Lin, and Susie have nailed it!

John said...

Wade -

Alright, I know that I said I'd let you have the last word, but I stopped in to see if you answered my question before getting on the road. And I've got to ask, what part of my question leads you to think that I am not SBC?

For the sake of disclosure, I am, and have been my entire life.

Pamela said...

The issue is not the title but being able to serve in the capacity that women feel they are called to do. Titles are ways to identify a person's function. They also denote levels of authority to some. When the same function is called a ministry title when the person is male and a secular title when it is a female this communicates a less than position as Lin, Susie and others so eloquently described. This is of utmost importance to women.

This afternoon I went out to lunch with a gal that attends the church I do. We started discussing this very issue outside of reading this blog entry. This is an issue that many women will quit attending churches over. This issue is not exclusive to the SBC. Some men have no idea the wounds that attitudes like this have needlessly inflicted on women involved in different Christian groups, denominations, etc. One reason is that in most cases women will suffer silently until it gets to a boiling point within. I quit attending churches for a time. One of the reasons was that I knew that I as a woman was nothing more but window dressing and a money bag. One pastor's hostility towards women was so bad that I needed a long time to recover because I was constantly fighting the idea that I and women in general were the cause of all of men's problems. YES one of the last speeches (I refuse to call it a sermon or message from God) consisted of if we were more helpful to men that men would be better men. I felt like screaming 'You need to man up yourself'. I was out of there not long after that.

I know from my walk with the Lord that I am precious because I was born. I also know that He treasures the time that I choose to spend in fellowship and communion with Him. I do my best to respect other followers of Christ and one that He also treasures. I expect the same repect. I will no longer tolerate these attitudes from deluded ministers. Why should I when the Lord does not treat me like that?

Lin said...

"One pastor's hostility towards women was so bad that I needed a long time to recover because I was constantly fighting the idea that I and women in general were the cause of all of men's problems. YES one of the last speeches (I refuse to call it a sermon or message from God) consisted of if we were more helpful to men that men would be better men. I felt like screaming 'You need to man up yourself'."

Pamela, I cannot tell you how many comp sermons I have heard that are so similar to this. If one stops and thinks this through to it's logical conclusion then what he is saying is that men have no power of the Holy Spirit on their own. It must come from a women!

Another ridiculous teaching I have heard many times goes like this: The man is the 'head' but the woman turns the neck.

How ridiculous. The pastor is basically saying that women have to manipulate to influence the husband as if he is some stupid puppet on a string that has power but is hollow. She must 'trick' her authority figure to get her way. This is also known as the 'make him think it is his idea'. this teaching only encourages women to act like little girls getting their way with daddy.

Or, my personal favorite: Anything with 2 heads is a freak. Well, since Jesus is my authority and if we are taught our husbands are, too, then we as women, do have 2 "heads" as they like to think that means.

Some don't stop at 2. They say that women in the church are also under the preacher's/elder/deacon authority. So now, she has 3+ "heads".

One can imagine how confusing it all is.

Wonder when Joe will finish his manual? (smile)

Pamela said...

My favorite one was a teaching that I heard on a tape years ago. We were supposed to listen to teachings from this man as part of being on the altar ministry team. He said that the I Love Lucy TV show unleashed rebellion in the land where women rebelled against their husbands. I even laughed at that one because it was so STUPID. I guess I laughed because I was not married. I'm sure the married gals were beside themselves. Needless to say that was the last tape I listened to by this man. If anyone had asked me about the tapes, especially the pastors, I would have told them that I thought the man had lost his mind. I doubt that they had listened to that one because I know the pastor's wife would have screamed:)

Wade Burleson said...


There is absolutely no biblical prohibition for a woman teaching Hebrew at a seminary - none. Nada. Nothing.

The only discrimination I currently hold to is a prohibition of women serving as Senior Pastors - and that is personal, confessional and cutural (N.W. Oklahoma). It is not biblical since there is NO biblical prohibition about women serving as pastors.

But I am choosing not to make an issue of the Baptist Faith and Message - even though the prohibition should not have been placed in the DOCTRINAL confession.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Pamela: I as others can relate to your story. Just some of the comments on the other posts dealing with women can tell you that it seems being a woman is almost a sin. Unless we are quiet and say nothing that is. :)

Anonymous said...

Wade -

Did you say that you are reading the Kosternberger-Schreiner book, "Women in the Church"? I'd like to hear your thoughts on it when you finish. I haven't read the book.

- ben

Elisabeth said...

"This subject still misses the point. Women that work too close with other male ministers can create a problem."

Tell me, is it because pastors are such male chauvenist pigs they can not be trusted to act like gentlemen around ladies?

Actually, the way I see it, if there were more women in the ministry it would be better all around in that regard. See, when the only pastor a lady has is a male, she might tell him more than she would normally tell a male. Not all pastors are gentlemen, and a vulnerable woman would be a tempting target for some. And if a pastor takes advantage of a counselee, it puts her spiritually and emotionally in an extreme tailspin.

Jamie Steele said...

Wade and bowden,

Do you guys think it is OK to ordain women for pastorial roles?

Many churches call the positions in question "directors" so they will not have to deal with the ordination of women..

Just asking.

Only By His Grace said...


You mentioned throwing out some thoughts about ministry and women. Here is my staff situation at Alameda Baptist Church in Norman:

The Bobbsey Twins, two eighth graders, came to church on Wednesday night about eight years ago. When you saw Lindsey, you saw Rachel; they even answered for each other. The girls made profession of faith and were baptized; alas, they discovered boys in high school, and they no longer were the Bobbsey Twins. I performed Rachel's and Bo's wedding ceremony. They moved to the City.

Today, Lindsey is in her third year at OU, called to Children's Ministry and on our staff as Minister of Children. I never once thought of her in the light of the complementation/egalitarian controversy. There would never be a controversy in our church over salary or authority until the minute we decide to ordain her. Ordination would split our church right down the middle.

On the way to church yesterday, I stopped at a trailer park, loaded up twelve K-Fifth graders, mainly Fifth graders. Paul who is finishing up at O-Trip and starting OU in the fall was back with the Youth. I went to Lindsey, "Fifth Grade room is full with the wildest bunch in creation, Shey is home sick, and Paul is not at his station." I turned around and went off to teach my 30-45 year old mixed SS class. I do not know what happened, but I do know Paul was at his station, and Lindsey told him to get there.

If it concerned the K Department with a fifty year old Deacon and his wife as Director/Teacher, she would have told Jerry to get to class, he has kids in there.

Is she out of God's will? Well, if anyone thinks so; it would be a surprise to our church, church staff, Deacons and all.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;

Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.

What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,

Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!



So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,

And for that name which is no part of thee

Take all myself.

ROMEO AND JULIET around 1595 by William Shakepeare or or as he liked Shakespar.

Bowden McElroy said...


That's my point. If a church believes only men should be ordained, then only call men.

If a church believes women can function just fine in pastoral roles, then ordain them.

I'm okay with whatever your church decides; just be consistent.

Pamela said...

Obviously the term 'ordained minister' as it relates to women is very important if ordaining a woman would split a church in two. Terms, names, titles are important. In fact it is more important to those that refuse to give the same titles for the same functions that both men and women perform in ministry. From what has been said the issue is not what women do but what they are called and if they are ordained. For those to suggest that women should not care about what they are called need to really think about how it sounds. The fact that a woman will not be given a name/title shows that those that refuse to do so put an incredibly high value on names, titles and the like. You cannot put such a high value on what a woman is being called but then imply or tell women that they should not care what they are called. It is communicating something to women. That message is a horrible one.

To have a woman do the same exact tasks that an ordained minister would do but is not allowed to be ordained just because of her gender is wrong and God is not pleased with it. The issue is not the title but preferential treatment just because of gender. Yes I said God is not pleased with it. There is no way you can dress this up to say that this is acceptable. The world would curse people out for saying something like that but we are supposed to accept this. The Bible says there is not male or female, Jew or Greek but we are all one in Christ, not the higher more important male species and the female subordinate afterthought of God.

Anonymous said...

You said..."There is absolutely no biblical prohibition for a woman teaching Hebrew at a seminary - none. Nada. Nothing.

The only discrimination I currently hold to is a prohibition of women serving as Senior Pastors - and that is personal, confessional and cutural (N.W. Oklahoma). It is not biblical since there is NO biblical prohibition about women serving as pastors."

So based upon this comment, you willingly submitted to a confession that you believe to be unbiblical when you were a trustee at the IMB? Did you state your objections to this item as you did the statement on close (not closed) communion? You've never mentioned this before.

Personally, I think it is sad that you would elevate culture (NW OK) above Scripture, which is what you are doing if you would prevent a woman from serving as pastor for cultural grounds after stating there is no bibilical prohibition.

Your slide down the slippery slope of inconsistency continues to amaze me.

A Curious Seminary Student

R. L. Vaughn said...

Bowden, you write, "I'm okay with whatever your church decides; just be consistent." Actually it seems you are not OK with whatever a church decides unless that church decides to be consistent (in your version of consistency).

I noticed in the previous thread one commenter told Wade, "Your church should demand a better use of your time." Another responded, "What Wade does and his church demands is absolutely none of your business unless you are a member of that local fellowship." It seems to me that if it is true that whatever a church of which we are not a member does is none of our business (in the sense of giving our opinion about it) that we would be deprived of much of the blogging and commenting that we all do!! Consistency, thou art jewel (but only proof of consistency/inconsistency, and not of which inconsistent position is wrong or whether both might be).

Anonymous said...

My question is regarding this 'ordaining' process that is so important. Could someone point me to the scripture that we get this idea from. Is it only for men? I am genuinely curious about this.


Anonymous said...

"My question is regarding this 'ordaining' process that is so important. Could someone point me to the scripture that we get this idea from. Is it only for men? I am genuinely curious about this."

Teena, Great question! We have taken some beautiful passages about laying on of hands, praying over those who are going to serve and turned it into a an official ceremony that comes awfully close to looking like a sacrament.

Anonymous said...

"So based upon this comment, you willingly submitted to a confession that you believe to be unbiblical when you were a trustee at the IMB?"

When I took a SR position in a mega church, I signed a document saying I would not drink or buy alcohol. So, I did not. However, I have no biblical problem with moderate wine drinking and since I have left that position I can enjoy a glass of Cabernet now and then. Scripture prohibits drunkeness not drinking.

Is that inconsistent or respectfully submitting to the rules of that church or denomination?

Bob Cleveland said...


I think I got it now. We lay hands on folks to ordain them, as in:

Acts 13:3: And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (KJV)

My wife told me if I ever laid hands on another woman she'd kill me. So how COULD we ordain women?

Anonymous said...

David Dockery has written a great book emphasizing the need for consensus and renewal amongst Southern Baptists. It is titled Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Proposal (B&H Academic, 2008). The book will be available in June.


Wade Burleson said...

A Curious Seminary SWBTS Student

Sign your name. You will find that pastoral responsibility includes personal accountability.

You commented: So based upon this comment, you willingly submitted to a confession that you believe to be unbiblical when you were a trustee at the IMB?

While you were in junior high in 1999 I wrote a letter, published in our state Baptist paper, that opposed the BFM 2000 Senior Pastor prohibition. I opposed it based upon the fact that it should NOT be in a major doctrinal Baptist confession.

When I signed the BFM 2000 as a trustee of the IMB I wrote the same thing. The prohibition never should have been in the 'doctrinal' confession - and by the way, I never said it was unbiblical; it is extra biblical, but much of what we do as Southern Baptists - including 'ordination' is extra-biblical anyway.

That does not make it sin.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Anonymous #44,

I believe your comparison of your taking a position in a mega church and signing a document saying you would not drink or buy alcohol is not parallel with refusing to ordain women based on confessional reasons. In your own case, you personally chose to not do something you believe you have a right to do. In the case of denying women pastors, you would be denying the right of someone else (assuming you accept the argument that women have the right to be pastors).

This makes me further think about not just the inconsistency that Bowden McElroy brought up, but also Wade's.

Wade, it appears inconsistent on the one hand to compare this women's issue with slavery, segregation and racism, and then on the other hand write that women ministering in the church is a tertiary issue. Was slavery a tertiary issue? Is racism?

It appears inconsistent on the one hand to defend continuing as a practical complementarian based on loyalty to a confession of faith/confessional standard, while on the other hand writing that "The BFM 2000 teaches 'closed communion' and I and my church both believe and practice 'modified open communion.'" If one can find a creative solution around loyalty to the BFM on the closed communion issue, why not with women pastors? Why be loyal to the confession on one and not the other?

Wade Burleson said...

R.L. Vaughan,

You make some excellent points. I will consider them carefully.

Anonymous said...

"A Southern Baptist friend who has an earned doctorate in pyschoogy"

I think we have a new field of study here!! Can women join this pyschoogy field? :)

zhangxiaopi said...

solar fountain solar pump

版主支持你 said...

圣诞树 小本创业
条码打印机 证卡打印机
证卡打印机 证卡机
标签打印机 吊牌打印机
探究实验室 小学科学探究实验室
探究实验 数字探究实验室
数字化实验室 投影仪
投影机 北京搬家
北京搬家公司 搬家
搬家公司 北京搬家
北京搬家公司 月嫂
育儿嫂 月嫂
育婴师 育儿嫂
婚纱 礼服

婚纱摄影 儿童摄影
圣诞树 胶带
牛皮纸胶带 封箱胶带
高温胶带 铝箔胶带
泡棉胶带 警示胶带
耐高温胶带 特价机票查询
机票 订机票
国内机票 国际机票
电子机票 折扣机票
打折机票 电子机票
特价机票 特价国际机票
留学生机票 机票预订
机票预定 国际机票预订
国际机票预定 国内机票预定
国内机票预订 北京特价机票
北京机票 机票查询
北京打折机票 国际机票查询
机票价格查询 国内机票查询
留学生机票查询 国际机票查询

happyboy said...