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

Patterson, Greear, Hemphill & Spiritual Authority - A Cautionary Word to New Leaders in the SBC


Ronnie Floyd, J.D. Greear, Steve Gaines (Photo Courtesy MBC Pathway)
Dr. Paige Patterson has been completely removed from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was terminated last night by the seminary's Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees. The vote was unanimous.

For nearly twenty-five years I have opposed the authoritarian tactics of Dr. Paige Patterson and Judge Paul Pressler. That was not always the case. From 1979 to 1993 I was an active supporter of the Conservative Resurgence. I believed we Southern Baptists were in a “Battle for the Bible.” I served as a driver for Judge Pressler as he toured Oklahoma to “get out the vote” for the SBC in the late 1980’s. I was part of the platform security team for Paige Patterson and his crew in the early 1990’s.

It was at the 1994 Southern Baptist Convention that I began to see the strong-armed tactics of Dr. Paige Patterson. Some believe that the 1994 Convention was also the beginning of Paige Patterson and his loyalists targeting me.

I began to see that the “Battle for the Bible” was actually about power and control in the SBC. And sadly, it began to dawn on me that a particular harmful and false doctrine which harmed women was taking center stage in the SBC. Southern Baptist leaders (all male) began espousing the unbiblical teaching that males have an inherent “spiritual authority” over women, and that pastors (e.g. “the holiest of all males”) have the greatest spiritual authority of all. This doctrine became the driving force behind the male dominated leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. 

In 2006, Paige Patterson’s disciples who served with me as trustees of the SBC International Mission Board sought to ruin my reputation, end my pastoral career, and threaten my family and church because I stopped those same IMB trustees from doing Paige Patterson’s bidding in firing IMB President Jerry Rankin and a female Vice-President named Wendy Norvelle (you can read about those days in the book Hardball Religion). My fellow trustees went after Wendy because “no women should be in a position of authority over a man.” 

Those IMB trustees failed in their mission to humiliate and silence me,  and I thank them for making me the person I am today. 

Now their leader, Dr. Paige Patterson, is gone. The only question left is what to do with the stained glass windows at SWBTS. I predict they will be removed by the end of an ominous court trial set to take place in Houston, Texas. I have no joy in my heart over Paige Patterson’s termination. Only a sense of justice. 


A New Day Is Dawning in the Southern Baptist Convention

A young generation of Southern Baptists pastors, trained in the politics and spiritual authority propogated by Paige Patterson, had better be careful in aspiring to SBC leadership. Replacing old white SBC pastors who believe in the inherent “spiritual authority” of males over females with young white pastors who believe the same false doctrine will eventually mean these new SBC leaders could make many of the same mistakes Paige Patterson has made. 

Let me show you what I mean. 

J.D. Greear will be nominated for President of the Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas this coming June 12, 2018.  J.D. is pastor of The Summit Church in Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina. He seems to be a wonderful man with an equally fine family.  He has led Summit to be actively and generously involved  in missions and church planting. However, J.D.'s view of women, and what women “can and cannot do” in the home and in the church, serves as a microcosm of the problems we face in the Southern Baptist Convention.  

My son, Logan Burleson, and his wife, Nicole, love J.D. and attend Summit regularly. I have friends who tell me J.D. is a “shoe-in” to become President of the Southern Baptist Convention. I think the election will be closer than most imagine. But I am also of the opinion that both J.D. Greear and Ken Hemphill,  the other man who will be nominated for SBC President, would serve the Southern Baptist Convention well.

J.D.'s views  (or at least his church's all-male elders' views) regarding men and women reflect the unbiblical doctrine of "male spiritual authority" over women and serves as the foundation for the SBC's poor treatment of women.

J.D. attended Southern Baptist schools, including Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. While most Southern Baptists will be focusing on the soteriology of the two major Presidential candidates (e.g. “Calvinism vs. Arminianism”),  the question every Southern Baptist should be asking each candidate is this:
“What is your view of spiritual authority?”
The problems surfacing in the Southern Baptist Convention over the mistreatment of women directly stem from this unbliblical and harmful view of “spiritual authority.” In the Southern Baptist Convention, pastors see themselves like the priests of the Old Testament: 1. Uniquely holy, 2. Distinctly authoritative, and 3. Unequivocally in charge.

Only prophets dare questioned the priests of old, and it will take modern day prophets to bring SBC pastors to their knees.

Authoritative pastors have been in charge of the SBC for decades. That’s the reason women are overlooked. It’s an issue of wrongly viewing pastors as having “spiritual authority” to the exclusion of everybody else, particularly women (ask Beth Moore). This unbiblical concept of “spiritual authority” is THE problem in the Southern Baptist Convention.

It infects both Calvinists and Arminians.

Oh, sure, there will “resolutions” and “statements” about women, all offered by Southern Baptist pastors or theologians. But until people and gifted leaders (e.g. “pastors”) in the Southern Baptist Convention begin to understand and practice what Jesus Christ and the New Testament teaches about spiritual authority, we’ll continue to struggle with how women are being treated.

Jesus teaches that He is the sole spiritual authority in His Kingdom. All authority rests with Him (Matthew 28:18). Leadership in His Kingdom is based upon giftings, not gender; humility, not hubris; service, not status; character, not control; and esteeming others better than yourself instead of promoting yourself before others.

Any person - whether male or female (e.g. a patriarch or a feminist) - who “grabs authority” by obtaining an office to “rule over people” is disqualifed as a Kingdom leader.

Jesus said as much in Matthew 20:25-27:
25 Jesus called His disciples together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 It is not to be this way with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your servant 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
To be a true pastor in the New Covenant is a verb of service, not a noun of status. But the Southern Baptist Convention has taught for decades that men are to lead, and women are to submit, because God has granted men “the covenant position of authority” and women are to be “under the umbrella” of that authority.

That is pure, unbliblical nonsense. But it’s this faulty and erroneous view of spiritual authority that drives the Southern Baptist Convention’s mistreatment of women.


An Example from Summit Church

Three years ago (May 2015), J.D. Greear had a woman named Elyse Fitspatrick "speak" at The Summit on Sunday morning. Elyse is the author of several books, and according to J.D. Greear, is his wife's "favorite Bible teacher."

J.D. should be commended for having Elyse speak on Mother's Day, 2015. It seems, however, that this invitation for a woman to speak caused some consternation at Summit. 10 days after Elyse spoke, J.D. wrote a blog post entitled Can Women Teach in the Church? He writes:
Our elders have been working on a statement explaining the roles God has given to women in the ministries of our church. That statement is still in the works, but our recent invitation to have Elyse Fitzpatrick share during weekend services has led some to ask whether we believe a woman can preach and teach in the mixed-gender gathering of the church.
J.D. then attempts to answer that question by quoting I Timothy 2 and John Piper. J.D. concludes:
 “In context, I think [1 Tim 2:12] means that women shouldn’t be the authoritative teachers of the church..."
J.D. goes on to define what "authoritative teaching" means:
“Authoritative teaching” in a church is (1) teaching that is binding for that particular congregation and (2) the teaching that comprises that church’s fulfillment of its responsibility to pass on the faith to the next generation. The elders have the “authority” to remove from that local covenant community (under the consent of the congregation as a whole) those that reject this official teaching of the church (Titus 3:10–11).
J.D's teaching on "authoritative teaching" is both unbiblical and harmful to women. There are two biblical reasons I say this:

1. The authority behind Truth is always the greatness of the messagenot the genitalia of the messenger. 

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it (e.g. "the gospel" not the "messenger") is the power of God that brings deliverance to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile." (Romans 1:16).

If God spoke truth to Balaam through an ass, He can surely speak authoritative Truth to the world through both men and women.  Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," He is the Truth; and if He is the topic of the message, the authority of the message comes from Him, not the messenger.

2. If you wrongly believe that there is inherent authority in males, then you must treat female messengers of the powerful gospel differently.

This is where it gets weird. To show how a woman speaking "truth" at the Summit is one without authority, J.D. sets up a "hedge of protection" for the congregation lest they perceive (his word, not mine), that the woman has authority when she does not. He writes:
A woman can teach in a large formal setting, like a  mixed Sunday School class or an evening Bible study, but she must not do so in a way that “mimics” the teaching authority of a male elder. Perceptions are important, and if some in the church begin to look to a woman-teacher as their primary shepherd-leader, both she and they have gone into error.
But what about Elyse Fitzpatrick? She spoke on a Sunday morning during the "sermon time" at Summit.  J.D. explains how he and the males at Summit took several steps to prevent the wrong perception that Elyse had some authority over the congregation. He writes:
A teaching elder at Summit (e.g. J.D.) set the context, invited Elyse up to ask her a series of questions, and then (I) wrapped up the service by applying her words specifically to The Summit Church. The elder’s introduction, presence on stage, and application at the end “officialized” the explanation and exhortation given by her for The Summit Church, and made clear she was not teaching (as one with authority) in our church. She explained the content, but we, the Summit elders, bore the weight of responsibility for teaching.
If you watch Elyse Fitzpatrick's message on Sunday morning at The Summit, you will notice she was not allowed things that other male speakers can do at The Summit. For example:
  1. Elyse could not stand as she taught, she had to sit, lest it be perceived she had authority.
  2. Elyse could not "declare" truth, she had to be asked questions from one in authority.
  3. Elyse could not "apply" the Truth to the congregation, only those with authority could do this.
  4. Elyse had to be "introduced" and "followed-up" by a male with authority.
Had Elyse Fitzpatrick spoken truth the way males usually do at Summit, there would have been shock among the Summit men

I've written herehere and here that the problem within the Southern Baptist Convention is a warped view of authority. A wrong view of male authority got Village Church in Dallas in huge trouble, Ironically the problems at Village - male elders disciplining a female victim who sought to annul her marriage to a man over his child pornography addiction - occurred during the same month Elyse Fitzpatrick spoke at Summit (May 2015). J.D. Greear, Matt Chandler, and Mark Driscoll share a common view of male authority over women.

Unbiblical views of inherent male spiritual authority and the resultant harmful treatment of women infects both Arminians and Calvinists, young pastors old pastors, large church pastors and small church pastors. For some unknown and ungodly reason, biblical conservatism is defined in the Southern Baptist Convention in terms of a woman’s submission and a man’s authoritative leadership, rather than the New Testament definition of Kingdom leadership which is always based on giftings, not gender; character, not control; humility, not hubris; and service, not status.

Southern Baptists say we believe the Bible, but we believe more in our list of "rules" about "roles" for men and women than we do the message of the Bible. 

The Good News, the New Testament, the New Covenant signed and sealed by Christ's blood, elevates women to equal status in the Kingdom of God with men. Equal does not mean identical. Men and women in the Kingdom of God are different, but men and women in the Kingdom of God are equal in spiritual authority. There is equal worth (in Christ), equal significance (born of the Spirit), equal authority (we are all "priests unto God"), equal inheritance (co-heirs with Christ), and equal value ("we are the blood-bought redeemed"). 

I did some research on the antonyms of "authoritative" and discovered that "acquiescent" is a good word that describes the opposite characteristic of authoritative. To acquiesce is to "to accept, agree, or allow something to happen by staying silent." 

According to Greear (or at least the all-male elder board at his church), women who teach the Bible can't be in a position of declaring truth authoritatively, because nobody is to submit to a woman teaching truth. Women are the acquiescers; males are the authoritarians. Males give; women receive.  If a male receives "truth" from a woman, then "error" has a occurred because a male can't get anything authoritative from a woman.

There's a Greek word for such thinking - baloney. 

Paige Patterson just lost everything because he consistently behaved according to how he believed. Male authority over females is NOT biblical; it is cultural. And way too many elder boards at Southern Baptist churches have been infected with this false view of male "spiritual authority."

At some point, people in the Southern Baptist Convention are going to need to wake-up to the New Covenant truth that Jesus Christ makes the ground at the foot of the cross equal

Whether J.D. Greear becomes President of the Southern Baptist Convention or Ken Hemphill wins the election, reporters should ask both men significant questions about whether they believe men have inherent spiritual authority over women.

I'll be listening closely to their answers.

181 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Equal does not mean identical. Men and women in the Kingdom of God are different, but men and women in the Kingdom of God are equal in spiritual authority."

Yes! Such clarity.

Thankful for your courageous stand all these years.

-Serving in Asia

Jon L. Estes said...

Being that there are two candidates getting all of the attention this year. I find it sad that you only share your position on this subject concerning one of them. It is very possible that KH has similar beliefs concerning authority within the church. Not balancing the picture seems to say you support one candidate and are giving reasons you would not support the other.

The Wadeites might follow blindly into a vote which might support someone with even worse beliefs on this.

I hope that wasn't your intention.

Regardless - you put it out there.

Wade Burleson said...

Thank you Jon for your comment. I know J.D.'s position on this issue. I also know Ken Hemphill fought hard to give two women professors tenure at SWBTS ehen he was President. That is what got him in trouble with Paige and his loyal followers who were SBC trustees. I very well may vote for J.D. I like him. I am only cautioning both candidates that I and others will be watching and listening closely how they respond to women. I owe allegiance to no person. Only the principles of that Christ taught us.

Anonymous said...

Many say they believe the Bible, but they do not believe what the Bible says.

Tom Parker said...

Jon:

You said to Wade--:"The Wadeites"

Was that necessary?

Jon L. Estes said...

Tom -

From the way I read this blog, yes.

Lots have been said about those who follow Dr. P blindly (not sure of all the terms used but that is the meaning used).

Is that necessary?

Jon L. Estes said...

Wade,

I searched some things out there on this subject with KH. He would not be as strict as you paint JDG, of course, JDG has shown no sign of being anti-woman as those currently in the news. I hope those reading do not take your comments to that end.

Tom Parker said...

Jon:

You are so wrong to compare Wade to PP is unbelievable on your part.

You just like so many in the SBC use words such as Wadeites just as easy as you use the word liberal.

Can you not understand PP is out and unless the current leaders change their views about women in ministry--nothing has changed.

Wade Burleson said...

I would agree with you,

I have experience though with elder boards of churches that unintentionally denigrate and diminish women because they hold to unbiblical views of “spiritual authority.”

It’ll kill a church - and a Convention.

I’m issuing a call to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not an Old Covenant pattern of priestly authority.

On the Mount of Transfiguration, the great Old Covenant Lawgiver (Moses) and the great Old Covenant Prophet (Elijah) were with Jesus, but after the earth shook and Jesus was transfigured they disappeared and the voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son - acoute auton (hear HIM).”

It’s time the SBC heard Jesus and treated women the same as men because He did.

Thanks, again, for the comments.

Wade Burleson said...

Tom,

I didn’t take Jon’s comment as malicioius. I think he’s just concerned that I’m pointing people to one candidate over another.

I’m not.

I’m arguing for a principle, not for a person.

Tom Parker said...

I still think his use of the word Wadeites was unnecessary. Have a good day.

Jon L. Estes said...

Tom -

I think Wade and hope you would state that we all should follow Jesus.

If anyone is following man and not Christ, no matter how good or bad the man - it is still wrong.

So if there are any Wadeites out there - please appreciate Wade but follow Christ.

Wade Burleson said...

Amen. Jon.

Amen.

Tom Parker said...

Jon:

Last word to you. You said"Tom -

I think Wade and hope you would state that we all should follow Jesus.

If anyone is following man and not Christ, no matter how good or bad the man - it is still wrong.

So if there are any Wadeites out there - please appreciate Wade but follow Christ."

Nice jab at me Jon--no more talkie to you!!

Wade Burleson said...

Tom, without a doubt you would encoruage everyone to follow Jesus.

That’s obvious.

Mbill0327 said...

Example: Priscilla, she no doubt taught others from a position of “authority”

Its called the New Testament

Jon L. Estes said...

Tom -

No jab intended... I do not know you and only spoke of what I hoped for.

Nancy2 said...

For several years now, I have said that SBC should stand for Sanctified Boys Club. For more than 2 years, I have been mulling over the idea of requesting that my name be removed from the church role. Though raise a baptist, why would I want to stay when women are treated more as scullery maids and nannies than members of the body?

Hey, Tom and Wade: would calling people who agree with Wade 75% of the time, or more, Wadeites be Estesism?

Samuel Conner said...

Thanks, Wade.

I've seen "umbrella of authority" teaching go very wrong in a congregation outside the SBC. The congregation, for the most part, loyally huddled under the umbrella as the people holding the umbrella (genuinely good men, IMO, who were were themselves victims of this way of thinking) led it into a wilderness that, after it arrived there, was not where it would have preferred to have been.

I really like your view that authority in our day resides in the message rather than in the messenger.

I think that there may be a useful analogy to the question of "where does the authority of the biblical canon come from?" One could claim that the Church employed its God-given authority to define the canon, and that settled the question. This is very like the position that church officers have authority to pass authority onto their successors. I prefer the view that the biblical documents were inherently authoritative, and the Church historically recognized those books which should be regarded to be part of the authoritative canon. In a similar way, today churches recognize individuals whose character and gifting qualify them for specific kinds of service.

Again, thank you!

Wade Burleson said...

Samuel,

Spot...on!

Thanks for the comment.

Anonymous said...

I continue to see the curse operating in both men and women of the SBC - husbands wanting to RULE OVER wives and wives with thier DESIRES directed TOWARD their husbands (instead of the Lord). When we ALL look to Christ, who has the rule over ALL things, we will then, and only then, experience the body of Christ in all its present glory!

- a Christian who appreciates Wade but adores Christ.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

I must have missed something when I read my New Testament. If this is the message of Christ: Could you tell me where I can find the names of the women Jesus personally selected to be part of His inner circle of twelve? I must have missed that? Was it oversight on His part? Or did some authoritarian males remove their names from the record through translation?

What about the early Church Fathers? Did they misunderstand? Or were there some early Church Mothers that the authoritarian men scrubbed them from the annals of history? If this is a clear as you want to make it, surely there must have been some female apostles and early Church Mothers somewhere? Did I miss something? Of did the early church just not understand?

While I agree that much has been done against women, including Dr. Klouda, I think the New Testament is clear. The office of pastor/elder is reserved for men. Jesus established this by his own example and Paul codified it in his writings. The early church understood it and practiced it. We need to be very careful that in fighting the sin of abuse against women, we don't begin unbiblical practices ourselves. Complimentarianism doesn't lead to the abuse of women anymore ethan egalitarianism does. Bill Hybels was an egaliatarian! The abuse of women is a sin! It is a heart problem, not a theological problem!

Ron said...

Wade,
If the trustees have any integrity they will not only remove the images of Patterson and Pressler but all of the obscene stained glass windows and apologize for allowing their placement on the campus of SWBTS.

We missionaries are thankful that you stood up to the power brokers on the IMB board in the 90s. I am grateful that you saw the true purpose of the leaders of the conservative resurgence at that time was power and control. That was also true at the FMB in the 80s. Their has been no conservative resurgence at the FMB/IMB. We were always conservative theologically. That did not keep the CR leaders from launching a vicious campaign against Keith Parks and other staff members and missionaries lead by Patterson. CR leaders stood by and watched this and gave approval. Many of us spoke out but were ignored by those who claimed to be all about theology.

Ron West said...

Again my name is Ron West

Sallie Borrink said...

Calling people who discuss things here and generally agree with Wade "Wadeites" demonstrates to me that you really do not understand the core message of the biblical truth Wade has been trying to explain here for years.

Christ is the head. We all follow Christ. We all serve as He calls and the Holy Spirit equips us.

That's it. It's not complicated.

Re: the Elyse Fitzpatrick example. That is EXACTLY the type of mental gymnastics that pushed me to dig into the comp/egal debate and search out the Scriptures to really understand the truth. Elisabeth Elliot is another example like this.

Sallie



Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,

You may wish to begin with the word “office” which doesn’t exist in the original language but was inserted by early translators to substantiate “offices” of then church bishops.

I find it interesting that even when course correction is attempted - the SBC men really try to do good regarding the treatment of women - their deeply held traditions just keep getting in the way.

The Presleys said...

Pastor Wade,

Serious question here. Does the church you lead have women pastors/elders? If not, why not?

Nathan

Tom Rich said...

Wade, I think your example of the female speaker at JD’s church and the contorted explanations, shows the real problem the SBC is facing down the road: a generation of preachers has been trained in these false teachings on spiritual authority who have in turn taught it to milions of lay people who have bought it. JD was going to have a huge problem with men in his church if he couldn’t explain why this female was allowed to speak during the morning service! Many SBC churches won’t even have a female come up to read scripture or pray - and the men of the church want it this way.

Even if pastors changed their minds on this teaching and began ordaining women deacons and ministers, allowing women to “preach”, there would be a revolt of laymen who just won’t stand for it.

I still believe change will only come to the SBC when the lay people demand it. And I don’t see that happening any time soon. What do you think? How is change going to come?

Anonymous said...

Wade,

Reversing and recovering from the authoritarian culture that has become prevalent in the SBC should be the first order of the day as we move into the post-Patterson era. I appreciate you making yourself available to address these issues while traveling.

Anonymous said...

Tom Rich said "I still believe change will only come to the SBC when the lay people demand it. And I don’t see that happening any time soon."

Hopefully the For A Time Such as This movement will gain momentum rather than dissipate now that Patterson has been fired.

Anonymous said...

Got the word order wrong: www.forsuchatimeasthisrally.com

Burwell Stark said...

Thank you, Wade. I was an M.Div. classmate of JD's at SEBTS, and Patterson was president of the school. He was a 'rising star' in the school at the time and he, along with others, would imitate the school leaders in thought and preaching style. I am afraid that he has continued the same practice, only with a different mentor model.

Anonymous said...

Here is a thought--just my opinion, your mileage may vary:

The root of the rot isn't "can women teach with authority" but rather "no one can teach with authority." That is to say, Jesus is head of the church and the Holy Spirit will illumine the scripture to those seeking guidance. Both male and female may give their opinions on the text, but there really is soul competency and neither gender can teach "with authority."

Maybe what I mean is this: if the Bible forbade the playing of the cello in church, and if over time men and men only were allowed to begin playing the cello in church through twisting some scriptures and ignoring others, why on earth would we in the name of fairness and justice start allowing women to play the cello in church? Why wouldn't we simply stop everyone from playing the cello in church?

I believe Wade Burleson is one of the few real Baptists left. For example, he is not dispensational nor does he believe in eternal conscious torment. But never once have I heard him say nor read a post or book where his attitude is "I speak with authority about this so if you disagree either shape up or ship out." He knows the ultimate authority over souls is Jesus Christ.

And I believe would agree, God forbid he ever try to take the role of the Holy Spirit.

Linda

Anonymous said...

Your point is mute and not germane to my point.

You are correct, the word office or position doesn't appear in the original in 1 Timothy 3:1 it is episkopes which is Louw Nida number 53.59. This is "a religious role involving BOTH service and LEADERSHIP." Leaership is not the problem, authoritarisn leadership is. Believe it or not, women can be authoritarian leaders!

My point is this, the office or position or whatever you want to call it of pastor/elder, throughout church history has been understood to be male. Once again, Jesus set the example. You still haven't named a single female apostle or early "church mother." Was Jesus a misogynist because He only chose men as apostles? Was He mistaken? Did he miss an opportunity? Or is He the perfect, sinless, Son of God who followed a God-given principle of male leadership in the family and church?

Christiane said...

"At some point, people in the Southern Baptist Convention are going to need to wake-up to the New Covenant truth that Jesus Christ makes the ground at the foot of the cross equal."

This!

kneeling DAILY at the foot of the cross brings us into the right perspective towards Our Lord and towards one another

we are sinners upon whom God has looked . . . we need that perspective daily, to remember that the only time Our Lord chose to be lifted up, it was on the Cross;
as the old folk song from the sixties goes:
'He spent a long time watching from a lonely wooden tower'

Romycat Black said...

I had to laugh. In the time of Jesus the rabbi, including Jesus sat down to preach.

Victorious said...

Was Jesus a misogynist because He only chose men as apostles? Was He mistaken? Did he miss an opportunity? Or is He the perfect, sinless, Son of God who followed a God-given principle of male leadership in the family and church?

Anonymous, remember Paul's words regarding the message of salvation "first to the Jews?"

Romans 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Perhaps Dr. Gilbert Bilezkian's explanation for the reason the 12 apostles were male will help in understanding the reason why it was important at the time.

He says:
Since the first wave of the disciples' ministry was exclusively directed at Jews, it was inconceivable that anyone else but Jewish men could have been appointed to this task. Gentiles were generally held apart if not in contempt, and women were not deemed worthy of being instructed or of participating in Jewish public life, much less of being delegated as instructors to the people (Luke 7:6-7; John 4:9, 27; Acts 10:28). Therefore, under those conditions, it was inevitable that the first missionaries of the Christian movement should be Jewish males. Had Jesus included Gentiles and women among the Twelve, he would have forfeited the future of the movement at its inception.

You can read the entire article here:
https://godswordtowomen.org/Apostles.htm

Victorious said...

Was Jesus a misogynist because He only chose men as apostles? Was He mistaken? Did he miss an opportunity? Or is He the perfect, sinless, Son of God who followed a God-given principle of male leadership in the family and church?

Anonymous, and remember Jesus stating that same principle of "to the Jews first?"

He said:

Matt 10:5-6  These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

Bob Cleveland said...

Jesus actions in earth displayed perfectly His role. He had perfect power, but He was perfectly a Servant.

His servants here have the power and authority to act as He did. We do NOT have the power or authority to be what He wasn't.

Anonymous said...

"I must have missed something when I read my New Testament. If this is the message of Christ: Could you tell me where I can find the names of the women Jesus personally selected to be part of His inner circle of twelve? I must have missed that? Was it oversight on His part? Or did some authoritarian males remove their names from the record through translation?"

Mr. anonymous,
Can you tell me where I can find the names of the women who were present at the Last Supper? Can you tell me where I can find the names of the women who were present when Jesus gave the Great Commissions? I certainly can't find those passages.
Oh my! Maybe women should be excluded from the New Testament church altogether!

Bob Cleveland said...

It is ludicrous to formulate a theology based on what the Bible does not say, or on what Jesus did not do. Especially when that theology ignores other explicit scripture.

Anonymous said...

So your argument is Jesus was willing to literally overturn the entire religious system of Judaism and confront the Pharisees directly calling them a "brood of vipers,' BUT, for the expedience of His message, He is going to cave to sinful their ethnic and gender biases?

That is an example of how some, and I use the word some deliberately, egalitarians try to handle this.

I think we need to be careful about the lines we draw! I have followed Wade and Ben for YEARS! Though I am sure they wouldn't know or remeber me, I met them both at the SBC in Greensboro. I went to SEBTS with Ben. I agree with much of what they say and have kept quiet, for the most part, throughout the years. Just as they rightly saw error and had the courage to point it out, I see error in the message that is being taken away from this. This is about the abuse of power, not about complimentarianism! Once again, Bill Hybels was egalitarian! This is not a doctrinal issue, it is a heart issue.

What troubles me most is I am beginning to see an entrenchment into a we/they, right/wrong approach to complementarian and egalitarian views as well as reformed and revivalistic views. After all, Wade did say complementarianism is unbiblical. That means a whole slew of theologians throughout the centuries have been wrong and sinful! Is it really unbiblical? Maybe the way it is used by some is unbiblical. Maybe God intends for us all of us to talk without entrenching ourselves into one camp or another. Maybe we all are wrong and together we can help each other be more like Jesus? After all, as iron sharpens iron so one man (or woman) sharpens another.

Is there room enough under the SBC umbrella for reformed (Calvinist) theology and revivalistic (Arminian) theology? Is there going to be room for complementarian and egalitarian theology? Or are we going to sever into a bunch of different camps that lead to different denominations? The Lord did say a house divided against itself cannot stand! Lord help us ALL to be more like Him!

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many of these authoritative men receive truth from their wives on a daily basis.

"Proclaim and live the truth in Jesus' name," regardless of gender.

Christiane said...

"Or were there some early Church Mothers that the authoritarian men scrubbed them from the annals of history? If this is a clear as you want to make it, surely there must have been some female apostles and early Church Mothers somewhere? Did I miss something?"

The Church, for some time, tried to portray Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, and as to why they did this, I leave it to their consciences to explain to God, because TODAY, the Church calls St. Mary Magdalene 'The Apostolorum Apostola' . . . because Our Lord Himself SENT her to announce to the male Apostles that He had risen.

That great honor of the announcement of His Resurrection was given to a woman. By Our Lord Himself. And finally, the Church 'recognized' her as Our Lord had done. After millenia had passed.

St. Mary Magdalene: Our Lord's 'Apostle to the Apostles'

" What is certain is that Mary Magdalene was part of the group of Jesus’ disciples, she
accompanied Him to the foot of the Cross and, in the garden where she met Him at the tomb, was the first “witness of Divine Mercy”
The Gospel of John tells us that Mary Magdalene wept because she could not find the body of the Lord (Jn 20:11); and that Jesus had mercy on her by letting Himself be known as her Master, thus transforming her tears into paschal joy"
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/articolo-roche-maddalena_en.pdf

Anonymous said...

And where in the world did I ever say women should be excluded from the Nw Testament Church Women were obviously a very important part of the New Testament Church!

Unfortunately, that is an example of the kind of inflammatory and emotional responses that do absolutely NOTHING to further the conversation! I point out a legitimate point, and you create a straw slippy slope hasty generalization (all logical fallacies) that I must want to exclude all women from the church.

Lord help us!

Anonymous said...

"I wonder how many of these authoritative men receive truth from their wives on a daily basis."

Here is another example, you don't even know me and you attack me and assume there is some kind of serious flaw in my marriage and that in some way I must be abusive to my wife!

Why? How does that help your argument or the conversation? I have been married for 32 years, have 4 children and 3 grandchildren. I love, cherish, and affirm my wife. She is not only my best friend, she is my sounding board. Almost everything I do I discuss with her, including decisions our elders are considering (yes our church has a plurity of elders who are male).

Why do you assume, without even knowing me, that I am somehow abusive toward my wife?

Debbie Kaufman said...

I am so glad you wrote this Wade yet sad that you have to write this, if things do not change, many women will be discouraged. Praying that those who are now relieved that the board did their job finally will look into themselves and see where changes should be made to better things for women.

I am reading the same ole same ole on some comments elsewhere that indicate they do not see the need to change anything, that this will lead us beyond where they want to go, may they be the minority now and not the majority or we will be at square one. I suggest we pray on our knees for God to open eyes and change hearts beyond the great sounding resolutions. Beyond the emotion of the convention. May they see where they have erred and may repentance and change for women begin now.

drstevej said...

http://normangeisler.com/why-firing-paige-patterson-was-a-mistake/

Geisler doesn't like Calvinism.

Darryl said...

Can you post your exegesis of the verses concerning women in the role of authority? I hit your links and never saw any exegetical rebuttal. Thanks!

pam said...

"The only question left is what to do with the stained glass windows at SWBTS. I predict they will be removed by the end of an ominous court trial set to take place in Houston, Texas."
---------------------

how would you word a lawsuit in legalese that "demands reimbursement from Dorothy Patterson of donation dollars, given at great personal cost, which were foolishly misspent on self-promotion?"

Anonymous said...

There is a false narrative developing in the blog-sphere that suggests that Paige Patterson failed to end well, as if some singular trespass at the end of his career is what has derailed him. Patterson’s issues date back several years. The firing at SWBTS based on what transpired at SEBTS suggests that this board, knowing what they know now, would have never hired him. In other words, he disqualified himself years ago. Wade cites that his concerns started in the mid-90’s. In order to root out some of the systemic issues in the SBC, the Patterson firing needs to be understood in the light of decades of harmful misogynistic practices rather than as a one-off incident that just recently came to light, even if that one incident is the immediate cause.

Nancy2 said...

Hello again, Mr anonymous,
I wasn't being emotional, I was being sarcastic in my post about banning women from church. And, I do not assume that you abuse your wife. If complemtarianism works for the two of you, then more power to ya. It doesn't work for me.
When Jesus died on the cross, the veil was rent in twain. In most SBC churches, the veil was clearly rent in twain only for the males. Women are still kept behind the curtain. In our current church (as well as the last one), women can not speak at business meeting or in mixed gender classes. In our previous church, I was ridiculed for teaching an SS class with teenage boys in it. (I was a 7-12 math teacher. I can teach algebra II and pre-cal, but I can't point out mathematical mistakes in business meetings?)A deacon constantly poked fun at my husband for allowing me to drive. Another deacon went on a "Jezebel" rant, and said some unsavory things in class ........ there's more.
Now, do you understand my sarcasm?

Nancy2(posted as Anonymous previously)

Debbie Kaufman said...

Norman Geisler also thought Ergun Caner was being persecuted unjustly, so there ya go. And this has nothing to do with Calvinism.

Anonymous said...

Wade: assuming that your analysis of Greer's teaching of authority of men over women is right, then, if taken to its logical conclusion, NO woman can even witness to the gospel! If there is someone I am witnessing to about Jesus, and there is no man around, then I would have to either stop it completely, or hold up the conversation while I go and find a Christian man to "supervise" while I witness. Looks like Bill Gothard's "umbrella" is still alive and well in Southern Baptist circles--even though Gothard himself is losing his authority day by day as the truth about him comes to light.

Sallie Borrink said...

Here are a few links people might find thought-provoking:

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html

http://www.searchingtogether.org/the-body-with-one-part/

Nancy2 said...

"Patterson’s issues date back several years."

PP protected men who committed criminal acts. He is guilty of accessory after the fact, at the very least. A business man in the secular world would be facing criminal charges for what he has done.

Jean said...

Don't know why I came out as Anonymous; I signed in as Jean at 11:18 am. Sorry.

Sallie Borrink said...

This is another site that contains a wealth of in-depth study for someone who wants to study these issues.

https://margmowczko.com/

Nancy2 said...

"Equal does not mean identical. Men and women in the Kingdom of God are different, but men and women in the Kingdom of God are equal in spiritual authority."

Meh. My brother is a 5'11" blonde. My husband is a 6'2" brunette. They are equal, yet not identical.

pam said...

"Jesus... Leadership in His Kingdom is based upon giftings, not gender; humility, not hubris; service, not status; character, not control; and esteeming others better than yourself instead of promoting yourself before others."
++++++++++++++

The excesses of the Pattersons' luxurious self-importance are being stripped because of clumsy overstepping of boundaries of the 'core values'.

However, there are SBC leaders slick & saavy enough to toy with the 'core values' for their own benefit, without making such clumsy missteps.

what about the concept of stripping luxurious self-importance of SBC leaders on its own merits? i mean, luxurious self-importance is so synonymous with Jesus, right? (sarcasm alert! sarcasm alert!)

i'm told the velvet ropes come out to separate Al Mohler from the rif raff as he officially moves about, having emerged from a chauffer-driven fancy car. All paid for by donations given at great personal cost.

how silly, such pompous behavior. haven't we had enough of such things?

It's time for a Common Sense Resurgence. i'll gladly write the charter for it.



Anonymous said...

Nancy,

Yes but, as I understand complementarianism, what you are experiencing is not biblical complementarianism. Yes, there are some who take it to an extreme, and extremes of any kind are usually bad. My wife is a nurse and believe it or not, although our bodies need oxygen and water to survive, you can actually have too much of both and it can kill you.

My belief is the office of pastor/elder is limited to males. While our church polity also extends that to deacons, I think a biblical argument can be made for female deacons. As I understand Scripture, the only thing women can't do in the church is hold the office of pastor/elder. The things you mentioned, to me, are not consistent with the Bible.

I believe men do have a biblical responsibility to lead the church and their homes. In the church, everything is done is done under the oversight of the elders. Their leadership, and a man's leadership in his home, should be modeled after Jesus, who was a servant leader. Jesus NEVER was abusive and men should never be abusive.

Once again, I am convinced this is not a doctrinal issue. While it may seem that complementarianism can more easily lend itself to an abusive of women and authority, egalitarians can also be abusive and authoritative. It is a heart issue, not a theological issue.

Thank you for responding to my post. I appreciate your insight and I am sorry if I jumped to conclusions myself.

Anonymous said...

Don’t forget, Jesus referred to us Gentiles as dogs at the time. And of course the mature message we were the sheep that were not of the fold and yet...

So then, proper biblical interpretation would be to not look at descriptive accounts in the gospels where the fullest expression of the gospel was not yet worked out for us, as prescriptive.

One other thought, the apostles were given the great commission... go into all the world... and yet none left Jerusalem. They executed the great commission through others ... both men and women gifted by the Holy Spirit specifically and intentionally.

pam said...

"Our elders have been working on a statement explaining the roles God has given to women in the ministries of our church." -- J.D. Greear
--------------------------

has He, now.

Conjecture city. What a good idea, shackle half the human race based on conjecture. Made all the more egregious by hiding behind God to do it.

Donald Johnson said...

Note that the reason given by the trustees of SWBTS for the firing means that Paige Patterson should have been fired from SEBTS and never have been put in charge of SWBTS.

Mbill0327 said...

Were Southern Baptists right to send Lottie Moon and countless other women to the mission field?

They certainly evangelized and preached to men

I am asking for clarity sake

Thanks

Donald Johnson said...

To Anonymous,

Yes, anyone can sin and be abusive. But the egalitarian model for home and church is INHERENTLY safer than the complementarian one where one gender supposedly has more authority than another. And we see in Paige Patterson an example of what can go horrendously wrong when using the complementarian model. Why was he not fired from SEBTS and never given the job at SWBTS?

On the 12 apostles of Jesus being men, they were also free Jews, not slaves and not gentiles. If you want to use that as your model, it proves too much. Scripture tells us that they map to 12 patriarchs/tribes of Israel, which is why there needed to be exactly 12, when Judas disqualified himself, another was added so there would be exactly 12. Also, a fundamental principle of the Kingdom is one first learns before one can teach. Jewish boys were taught Scripture to a much greater extent than Jewish girls. Jesus had a ministry of about 3.5 years total. One starts with what one has to start with and acts in ways to move people step by step more and more into the Kingdom. And that is what we see Jesus doing, teaching women as disciples when other Jewish leaders thought this was a very bad thing to do.

Anonymous said...

Even though she apparently chose to do it herself, it was frustrating to see Megan Lively's name being exposed as the victim of the rape at SEBTS. I hope that this was not related to the trustees consideration of the evidence. We should do more to protect the victims.

In that light, I am concerned for Anne Marie Miller. She has been bravely telling her story, but it grieves my heart that the pressure and pain has wounded her so deeply. It is time to name the perpetrator of her abuse and to hold him accountable. He should be paying for her therapy.

pam said...

"A woman can teach in a large formal setting, like a mixed Sunday School class or an evening Bible study, but she must not do so in a way that “mimics” the teaching authority of a male elder.--J.D. Greear
-------------------

bring out the "mimicking the teaching authority of a male elder" police!

Better yet, why not form a council?

It's getting better by the minute, here... have a summit at the Holiday Inn in Raleigh, draft a statement, name it "The Raleigh Statement", and assure a place for yourself in the history you create with your own new & improved Nicene Creed. Because surely the original didn't far enough to separate out Gospel Christians from the illegitimate ones.

(i can see the opportunity for job creation and revenue streams already!)

pam said...

"JDG has shown no sign of being anti-woman as those currently in the news. I hope those reading do not take your comments to that end." -- Jon L Estes
-----------------------

no sign? none at all? if you were a woman, chances are you wouldn't feel that way.

Donald Johnson said...

What the complementarians need to do is to examine how Paige Patterson was raised to such heights of leadership in the SBC after doing such sins that harmed the body of Christ. As an egalitarian, I think the answer is obvious, PP is a fruit of the misinterpretation of Scripture that results in complementarianism.

Anonymous said...

But will Dorothy graciously pack Nimrods trophies? - Brad Smith

Betty Stevens said...

Truth be told, I believe a woman has been the real President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for the past 15 years. Never the less, what goes around usually comes around and that is true in this case. Thankful the time has finally arrived.

Jennie said...

There is a group who is historically Baptist and who believes that God calls all people. The CBF is not perfect, but it is a group who believe that God calls men and women alike. They still believe in the Priesthood of the Believer and are a wonderful home for many who were wounded in the SBC. We have many former SBC missionaries who found a home with us. It is a refreshing place. Some of you might find it to be a safe and nurturing home.

Beth74 said...

"Is there room enough under the SBC umbrella for reformed (Calvinist) theology and revivalistic (Arminian) theology? Is there going to be room for complementarian and egalitarian theology? Or are we going to sever into a bunch of different camps that lead to different denominations? The Lord did say a house divided against itself cannot stand! Lord help us ALL to be more like Him!"

Anonymous, can you please identify yourself so I can do some reading on your blog?

And if you don't have one...please consider making one.

Here's mine, including a post I wrote recently addressing these issues: http://www.toknowtheheartofgod.com/bible-studies/4584534133

Thanks, God bless.

Anonymous said...

Dr Robert Morey has some great research on this subject on women elders in the early church....

http://njiat.com/media/Women_Elders_by_Dr.Robert_Morey.pdf

Anonymous said...

In reading various patriarchial ministers and other positions on this subject, people are confusing what complementarianism actually means. Egalitarianism comes out of the French Revolution and is a very liberal humanistic term. Patriarchalists have distorted the term in what complementarian ACTUALLY means when they are actually advocating TRADITIONALISTIC views. In reading the comments, please get these terms correct guys.

Beth74 said...

Anonymous said...
"In reading various patriarchial ministers and other positions on this subject, people are confusing what complementarianism actually means. Egalitarianism comes out of the French Revolution and is a very liberal humanistic term. Patriarchalists have distorted the term in what complementarian ACTUALLY means when they are actually advocating TRADITIONALISTIC views. In reading the comments, please get these terms correct guys."

Who are you, please? Would like to learn more...

everette said...

Jesus was accompanied by women at pretty much every point in His ministry, as is indicated in passages such as Luke 8:1-3 and Matthew 27:55.

It's true that initially, the 12 apostles were all Galilean Jewish men (if we replace Judas with Matthias). Until Acts 12, the church consisted solely of Jews and Jewish proselytes. Paul 's ministry expanded the church into Gentile areas, and he began to recruit female church leaders as well.

It's significant to note that all of the female leaders mentioned in Acts and in Paul's epistles have Greek (Phoebe) or Latin (Junia, Priscilla, Lydia) names. This is likely because Greco-Roman culture was much more open to women in power than was Pharisaical culture.

It's possible that the only valid church leader is a male Messianic Jew--after all, that describes all of the apostles of the early church. But it's also possible that God calls leaders who will be effective in their culture. In some cultures, these will be mostly men, or all men; in others, it will be much more egalitarian. It is extremely dangerous to take one's cultural values (even those of conservative Evangelicalism) and assume that 1) they are precisely what the Bible intended; 2) untainted by sin, and 3) universally applicable.

Donald Johnson said...

I think the ideas of equality come from Scripture. The French revolution co-opted the use of the idea of equality in its motto.


Many complementarians admit that the idea is the same as patriarchy, but was not used because of the negative connotations.

Tamara said...

Wade - you said "A wrong view of male authority got Village Church in Dallas in huge trouble, Ironically the problems at Village - male elders disciplining a female victim who divorced her husband over his child pornography addiction - occurred during the same month Elyse Fitzpatrick spoke at Summit (May 2015)"

Would it be important to note that the woman was not seeking to divorce her husband but was pursuing a legal annulment on the grounds of fraud with the support of her missions board? The elders were attempting to use their "authority" to force her into a church-overseen reconciliation/restoration of marriage process which would have invalidated her ability to get the marriage annulled.

An annulment would result in her being considered, in the eyes of the law and the church, a "never-married" woman...rather than one who had divorced her husband (a big no-no, according to many).

Christiane said...

"Anonymous said...
Don’t forget, Jesus referred to us Gentiles as dogs at the time."

reference(s) needed
thanks

Tamara said...

To Anonymous who pointed out (correctly) that Jesus chose Jewish men to make up the Twelve. Only Jewish men would have been permitted to accompany Him into the Temple where he conducted a great deal of His teaching. Gentiles and women had limited and restricted "access" to God.
But as we all know, at His death, the veil was torn. Hebrews assures us that ALL have access to the Father through the blood of Christ.

So WHY would you even attempt to use pre-crucifixion/resurrection Jewish restrictions to define believers' new-life in Him and make them "subject again to a yoke of slavery"?...to quote Paul's letter to the "foolish Galatians".

Beth74 said...

Christiane,

I didn't write that post, but the author was likely referring to:

Mark 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

Mark 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.


Also, please consider reading this post I wrote about both the Justice and the Mercy of God:
http://www.toknowtheheartofgod.com/bible-studies/4584534133

Blessings.

Christiane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christiane said...

Hello Beth74,

I also thought that it doesn't make sense that Our Lord would call Gentiles 'dogs' and mean it because, during the Incarnation, Our Lord assumed the humanity of all humankind when 'He was made Man' (Gentiles included) :)

Beth74 said...

Christiane,

I think Jesus just meant those who were not worthy of it.

She proved she was worthy of truth and blessings, and she was a Gentile.

He was just being careful, as we should be.

He blessed her richly and marveled at her faith...and made her a positive example to others!

Christiane said...

Thank you, Beth74

Bob Cleveland said...

Christiane: I do not believe He was calling gentiles "dogs". He was drawing an analogy but never said gentiles were "dogs".

At that point in the ministry, the gospel was not for the gentiles, and His analogy set that forth very well.

Pam said...

I was on the cradle role in a SBC Church, got saved in one at the age of 10 and have (until recently) always accepted w/o question complementarianism. For the first time in my life I am questioning it as I sincerely want the TRUTH. My question here however is that IF complementarianism is Biblical, WHERE is the accountability? In an ideal world, one could count on the pastor, elders, and deacons to adhere to the Bible and our Lord's treatment of women. In the REAL world, we have - and have had- too many men in those positions who are either more interested in control, or who 'go along' with the stronger personalities wanting control. The evil one is real, temptation is real and therefore accountability is necessary in Church and outside it. So, tell me, WHO is there to call out male leaders (those in authority) when they stray and therefore hurt women in regards to this issue?

Donald Johnson said...

There are a couple of reasons why I think Jesus did not refer to gentiles in general as dogs in the quote. In Scripture slang, a dog is term for a male pagan temple prostitute. Since he was talking to a woman, he could not be referring to her. Furthermore, the noun Jesus used is in the diminutive form, so it might better be translated as doggie. For example, Paul called Prisca as Pricilla in some letters, this indicated his affection for her as Priscilla is the diminutive form of Prisca, literally little Prisca..

Beth74 said...

Good point, Pam.

Excellent question.

Anonymous said...

The question is will people move own or draw a line in the and and make a fight of it? If this is truly about the kingdom of God then let God be the justifier and just spend you days praising Him. We serve Christ not a convention. If it comes to a point were you going to fight over a title, postion, property, or the finances in the bank then remind yourself in the end those things will succumb to Rust and Moths and light has no fellowship with darkness.
Anon South La.

Anonymous said...

Dr Robert Morey has some great research on this subject on women elders in the early church....

http://njiat.com/media/Women_Elders_by_Dr.Robert_Morey.pdf


That is one of the most enlightening articles I have read in a long time! Thank you for sharing!

I have struggled for years with the clear teaching of Paul about a "Widows Ministry." After reading this article, this is part of the answer, I think, to what so many see as wrong with only male elders. I admit that at times I struggle with the fact that when the elders meet, we have no female voice. I attempt to seek it out through my wife and other women in the church, particularly those on staff. But formally, I admit we have no female input into our decision making and I do find that troublesome. As I understand this article, that is the purpose of the "Widows Ministry."

Beth74, As far as identifying myself, I may choose to do so at some point in the future, but I think it will suffice to say, for now, I am not a Pattersonite troll. I am also not a Wadeite, or any other kind of ite. I am a committed follower of the Lord Jesus, the blessed husband of a wonderful and beautiful wife, the proud father of four children and 3 grandchildren, and a humble servant of our Lord who has the honor and privelege of being one of the elders who provides oversight over a medium size SBC church in North Carolina. I am currently working on my Doctor of Ministry degree at Southeastern, and hope to one day hear my Lord say "Well done my good and faithful servant." I don't have a blog (really don't have time to keep up with one), but appreciate your encouragement to start one. Maybe when I finish my studies I will consider doing that.

To be continued . . .

Anonymous said...

Continued


Tamara, I believe there is a difference between biblical precept and practice. I do not think precepts change. How those precepts are put into practice can and do change over time and within particular cultures, but the precept remain the same. God's Word, and God Himself never changes. In the Old Testament, not only were the priests men, they had to be from the tribe of Levi. You chould be a man of the highest character who was true and faithful to the message of God, but if you weren't from the tribe of Levi you could not be a priest. Similarly, you could have horrible character and defile the things of God and if you were from the tribe of Levi you could serve as a priest. Fair? Who am I to question the Lord? For whatever reason, God said to be a priest you had to be a man form the tribe of Levi. I believe, in the New Testament, God clearly says that those who hold the office of pastor/elder no longer need to be from the tribe of Levi, but they do still need to be male. I belive women were and are critical to the church. They can hold every office in the church and do everything a man does in the church except hold the office of pastor/elder. That office, for whatever reason (again who am I to question God) is restricted to men. I belive there is a biblical prcept that dictates this and this is why Jesus chose men for his innner circle of 12. I bleive, from the beginning, God intended for mento lead their families, and the church family. Think about this, God never gave the prohibition to Eve, He only gave it to Adam. God intended Adam to pass it on to his wife. He failed to do so, and he failed to stop his wife (or at the sake of being blasted, exercise authority over her) and as a result all mankind fell into sin. I believe the biblical precet is for men to lead in their famlies and in the church. Once again, we can have a discussion what that leadertship should look like, and we would probably agree. The men should be servant leaders, not abusers. They should be willing to lay down their lives for their wives and for the sheep God has entrusted to their care. That is the example of Jesus! Abuse of women in any capacity is not complimentarianism. Abuse of authority in leadership and abuse of women is not restricted to complimentrians. Egalitairians, Calvinists, Arminians, and a host of other sects and divisions can take part in these SINS! It is a sin problem, not a doctinal problem! It is not sinful to think men should lead, or for men to lead in the church or in their families! It is their God given responsibility.

pam said...

Anonymous said...
"In reading various patriarchial ministers and other positions on this subject, people are confusing what complementarianism actually means. Egalitarianism comes out of the French Revolution and is a very liberal humanistic term. Patriarchalists have distorted the term in what complementarian ACTUALLY means when they are actually advocating TRADITIONALISTIC views. In reading the comments, please get these terms correct guys."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

i think we can look to the ideas of Dorothy Patterson (let alone John Piper) who were there when the word "complementarian" was coined to get our understanding of what the word actually means.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the typos in my second post. I wanted to get it posted so there wasn't a break between my two posts and wasn't as diligent as I could or should have been. Please forgive me.

CARMAC said...

Beth Moore should not have been mentioned in this article.
She is a wolf.
So Scripturally illiterate as to make even my dog sick
Is the entire SBC headed in totality headed back to Rome?
I will never associate my self by membership or giving to what has become the
greatest tragedy since Jehovah divorced the house of Israel.

Donald Johnson said...

I think it is sinful for men to think they are the sole authority in the church and the home. Just because some can misinterpret Scripture to claim this is no reason not to call it out as sin. It is exactly the same kind of sin that claimed that slavery was valid, it is using Scripture to seek power. Jesus said to not do that.

Victorious said...

I believe the biblical precet is for men to lead in their famlies and in the church.

Anonymous 5:37 p.m.

Would you please provide scripture as evidence for men to lead their families? I've not found anywhere where such a mandate/command is given to husbands.

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

I never said men are the "sole authority?" In fact, I said I deliberately seek out female voices. I agree, authoritarianism, by anyone, is sin. That does not mean men can't lead lovingly and sacrificially as Christ leads the church. Men have the responsibility to LEAD their home and the church. Thet do not have the right to LORD over them. Thre is a difference.

Brother, I'm sorry, but where are you coming from? Out of nowhere you inject slavery and insinuate that those who believe in biblical complementarianism would also have defended slavery. Once again, that is inflammatory and of no help to the conversation. NO ONE that I know is advocating for the enslavement of women or anyone!

Beth74 said...

“Beth74, As far as identifying myself, I may choose to do so at some point in the future…”
“I don't have a blog (really don't have time to keep up with one), but appreciate your encouragement to start one. Maybe when I finish my studies I will consider doing that.”
Yes, please do.

I, too, am a ministry grad student, but at the Master’s level.

I am also a co-pastor with my husband of a small local church. I am not looking to be the head pastor anywhere, but I am a fairly gifted Bible teacher and I loooove teaching and talking about Scripture.

I struggle with where women stand in leadership – I mean, I’m totally thrilled that God would have Deborah as a judge to rule over Israel, and I think she did a bang-up job.
But I also am not opposed to there being an ideal order for things. The thing is, as we’ve seen monumentally in the Baptist church, if men are not held accountable, it paves the way for gross abuses of power. Also...if men are not willing to step up to the plate for the cause of righteousness and truth, I believe the Lord will utterly support women in doing so.

Switching gears: I am a student and a mother, Anonymous, and I have a blog. You can find it here: http://www.toknowtheheartofgod.com/bible-studies/4584534133.

Please read my latest post and share your thoughts in the comments section.
And find the time yourself. I’d love to read more of your thoughts.

Blessings,
Beth

Anonymous said...

Quickly and off the top of my head:

Ephesians 5:21-33, particularly verse 23

Colossians 3:17-21

1 Timothy 3:4-5 and 12

Ephesians 6:4

1 Peter 3:1-7

and to a certain extent 1 Corinthians 11:3






Anonymous said...

By the way, in Ephesians 5:21-25, "wives submit to your own husbands" is in the imperative and 'husbands love your wives" is also in the imperative. The same is true in Colossians 3:18-19.




Tamara said...

To anonymous who answered me with: "I believe women were and are critical to the church. They can hold every office in the church and do everything a man does in the church except hold the office of pastor/elder."

I hope you understand that there are men - many, many men - who do NOT believe as you do that women can hold every office in the church except pastor/elder (and what about the large churches that have 10 or 12 "pastors" overseeing a variety of areas?).

They believe that the precept "clearly taught" in Scripture is that no woman can hold a ministry position that puts her in directive authority over a man. My goodness, read some of the nonsense John Piper has been saying.

Wade gave examples in his article on how this has played out under Patterson's leadership and in churches of those influenced by him. More examples can be found in the archives.

So before you devote much more energy to the why of "no women as pastors", let's just get to women being regarded, respected, and listened to co-heirs in Christ....and then encouraged and empowered to use the gifts God has given them to serve Him within their local church.

RB Kuter said...

The SWBTS Trustees are cowards. They knew about the history of the rape victim at SEBTS when they awarded Paige with the retirement home, benefits, and position of continuing authority. A few days later they did an "about face". Why? Because they were surprised at the tsunami wave of protests they got for making that very foolish, but predictable, decision. So today's decision to fire Paige means "zero", other than to show the Trustees for the weaklings that they are.

Anonymous said...

Tamara, you said "let's just get to women being regarded, respected, and listened to co-heirs in Christ....and then encouraged and empowered to use the gifts God has given them to serve Him within their local church."

I affirm that and think there are many other complementarians who would also. My heart greives for the many women and children who have been abused, not just in the name of complementarianism, but for whatever reason.

I am convinced What Paige Patterson did was an abuse of power and a distortion of biblical complementarianism. It is extremely unfortunate that it took 20 plus years and Lord only knows how many hurt people over those years, but thanks be to God he was held accountable. By the way, let's not forget Bill Hybels, who is an egalitarian, who also abused women for over 20 years. He was also finally held accountable, though to a lesser extent than Paige Patterson, yet he isn't mentioned much here.

This is not a doctrinal issue, this is a sin issue. I think we all need to be careful, for we can easily fall into sin ourselves. We must never forget who our enemy is and what he wants to do! Satan wants to divde us. He wants to steal our joy. He wants us to fight with eachother over secondary doctrinal matters so we can't be about what we really should be doing, making disciples who glorify God. Yes, complimentarians have distorted the position and used it to justify their sin. Egealitarians have also committed the same sins.

May we pray the priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17 for each other and our convention. May we be one, as He and the Father are one, so that the world may know that God loves them and sent His Son Jesus to die for them.

Beth74 said...


RB Kuter said...
"The SWBTS Trustees are cowards. They knew about the history of the rape victim at SEBTS when they awarded Paige with the retirement home, benefits, and position of continuing authority. A few days later they did an "about face". Why? Because they were surprised at the tsunami wave of protests they got for making that very foolish, but predictable, decision. So today's decision to fire Paige means "zero", other than to show the Trustees for the weaklings that they are."

Can't disagree.

My friend told me they are all getting together to pray for Patterson now.

Where are the prayers for the victims???

RB Kuter said...

Wade's blog post on JD is interesting and true. But I say again, the problem with the Southern Baptist Convention is NOT its chauvinistic position regarding women. The problem with the Southern Baptist Convention is the rottenness of its core; the corruption, the cronyism, the deceit, hidden agendas, abuse of the trust of its constituency, its arrogance, pride, power craving, control addict, leaders who manipulate the structure to achieve their agenda. THAT is what our problem is. WOMEN are collateral damage resulting from the corrupt system that is in place.

I think Wade is pretty much saying the same thing. Perhaps the only difference between his thoughts and mine are that I do not believe any statement from those Paige-boys in control regarding women's role in ministry will reflect a change of heart. If the SBC President says tomorrow, "Women can be pastors and teach with authority over men if they feel called by God to do so.", it would not matter. The system would remain corrupt. A President making such a statement would no doubt be saying that due to the pressure of the moment coming from the masses; similar to the SWBTS Trustees today.

ANY person seriously considered as President of the SBC has been vetted and approved by the powers that be. That should be obvious to us all. JD, Ken, have both been approved but JD passed it by last time, no doubt with the assurance that he will be rewarded if he waits for the next time, which is this year's election.

Unless the SBC masses miraculously put an "outsider" into the position of President, someone NOT approved by the "Paige-boys" currently running the show, nothing will change.

Emplacement of such an "outsider" would require an act of God. But God may have already given up on us.

Anonymous said...

Wade Burleson for SBC President!

Victorious said...

Ephesians 5:21-33, particularly verse 23

I'm reading a mutual submission in verse 21. Verse 23 says nothing about authority, but rather Jesus models agape love, sacrifice, nourishing, and cherishing. No mention whatsoever about authority.

Colossians 3:17-21

The only thing husbands are told to do in this passage is to love their wives. Again, no mention of leading or having authority.

1 Timothy 3:4-5 and 12

Are you interpreting "manage" as being a leader or having authority over a household? Because 1 Timothy 5:14 admonishes young women who may be widows to remarry and "rule" their households. A

Also 1 Cor. 7 gives mutual authority over one another's bodies to both husbands and wives. And mutual agreement to a time of abstinence.

Ephesians 6:4
Fathers are not to provoke their children. But children are to obey both parents according to verse 6:1. No mention of a particular leadership by one that is not due the other.

1 Peter 3:1-7

Yes, this passage speaks of a wife's respectful behavior and mentions Sarah as a model of that behavior toward her husband. But let's not forget that God Himself commanded Abraham to obey Sarah in whatever she told him to do. (Gen. 21 if I remember correctly) Again, it's our behavior toward one another that's the focus as verse 7 says....husbands, "in the same way...."

BTW if we are using that passage as mandatory, shouldn't we forbid gold wedding rings and/or braided hair?

and to a certain extent 1 Corinthians 11:3

Since I don't believe in a hierarchy within the Trinity, I'll leave it with my opinion that "source and/or origin" are much more likely since Paul nicely concludes the same in verse 12: For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 

I'm still thinking something is being read into those verses that simply is not there.

Sallie Borrink said...

Anonymous keeps saying that this is not a doctrinal issue but a sin issue. I think it's a mistake to make this an either/or instead of a both/and.

These situations involve both sin and doctrine. To turn this into only a sin issue diminishes the importance of these questions for the women who sit in the pew, gifted by God, and completely shut out from using those gifts.

Is the comp/egal issue a salvation issue? No. Is it a secondary issue that doesn't matter much? No, it's not that either.

Complementarianism as it is widely practiced (and even promoted positively as patriarchy by some of the leaders in the movement) is an incredibly important doctrine for women who are basically told to sit down and shut up.

Think of this. Lottie Moon herself wouldn't even be allowed to speak in an SBC church unless she was seated and asked a series of questions that was then "covered" somehow by elders. Really? Seriously? Because she might speak with authority? When she's been evangelizing hundreds of men and women elsewhere?

More mental gymnastics.

Doug Burleson said...

No one who goes by “anonymous” should post any comment of any kind. It’s weak. Especially when you want to take jabs at someone. Have the guts to be a man and include your real name. Wade is too gracious to respond inappropriately. However, I am not.

Anonymous said...

Yes, what you left out is the word SUBMIT!

Wives are commanded, it is in the imperative, to SUBMIT to their husbands, which screams authority and the leadership of the husband.

And you gloss over the qualifications in 1 Timothy as if they don't matter. The man must RULE his household well, which also screams he must LEAD his family!

By the way, there is no hierarchy in the Trinity, but there is willing submission of the Son to the Father. Remember, He did pray "Not my will by Yours be done." That is the problem, this is not about hierarchy, but roles. In the Trinity, Jesus had a role to play and He willing submitted to the Father, who did not die on a cross. Yes, God died on the cross, but not God the Father. Jesus was not any less God because He submitted to His Father. A woman is not of any less value because she submits to her husband. She is commanded by God to do so and the husband is comnmanded to love his wife as Christ loved the church. Matthew 20:25-28 explains what servant leadership is.

Anonymous said...

I haven't taken jabs at anyone!

Again, that is part of the problem. If someone has a contrary position and takes the time to defend that position, they are "taking jabs." For the sake of the Gospel, quit viewing this as a fight. My Brother, WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM!

For what it is worth, if you don't want anonymous posters, then you shouldn't include that option. As you have this blog structured, it is within my right to remain anonymous. Plenty of others have done the same over the years.


Tamara said...

Anonymous said: By the way, let's not forget Bill Hybels, who is an egalitarian, who also abused women for over 20 years.

Yes, but for Hybels, it is a personal sin issue utterly divorced and unsupported by any doctrinal position he holds.
For the complimentarians**, any and all such sin is a logical and not terribly unexpected result of the doctrinal positions they hold that the hierarchy of universal male authority/female subordination was God's plan for creation, rather than (as the Bible says in Genesis 3), a consequence of sin entering the world. Has Patterson shown any sign of repentance or apologized to the individual women he's harmed? No...because he thinks he has acted rightly according to his interpretation of what the Bible says.

Your attempt to compare the two situations is a false analogy.

** I hate this term. When I got married, long before Piper and Grudem and the comp-crowd stole and perverted a perfectly good word, "complimentary" meant that through marriage God brought together two of His children with "complimentary" gifts, talents, strengths that balance the others' weakness, etc. because they could better fulfill His purposes together than as individuals.

Wade Burleson said...

Everyone,

I am 13 hours ahead in Bali, Indonesia. So, I’m just now waking up and reading some excellent comments. I’m sorry I can’t keep up with answers. Our last day on mission, and we’ll be flying back tomorrow.

Just one thought:

Everyone seems fixated on women serving as “Senior Pastors” (including the BFM 2000). Why? Because “SENIOR PASTORS” have the most “spiritual authority.” That’s the problem we are facing in the SBC. We are infatuated with authority.

In Christ’s Kingdom, people serve as gifted, putting others before themselves. The 501C-3 non-profit local “church” is not the KINGDOM or even the CHURCH. In our incorporated non-profit (Emmanuel Enid), the state requires “licenses” for the privilege of officiating a marriage ceremony. We will license “ministers” because the state requires it, but that’s non-profit state status.

There is no such thing as ordination in the New Testament. Gifted men and women are “set aside” for specific tasks to advance the Kingdom. Some have the gift of teaching, others helps or mercy, others exhortation, etc... In the church of Jesus Christ, leadership rises among the “older” ones (elders - men and women) who have demonstrated humility, a servant’s heart, and a desire to place others before themselves.

An anonymous person a couple of comments up said, “But you left out the word SUBMIT!”

Nope.

We are to “submit one to another” says Paul. The husband is a willing to submit to his wife as a humble servant as the wife is willing to submit to her husband as a willing servant. We are to “love one another.” The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves him, and the wife is to love her husband as Christ loves her.

The “one another” imperatives in the New Testament are NOT gender specific.

So, too, leadership is not gender specific.

For more research on all these matters, search my blog at www.wadeburleson.org

People ask me, “But Wade, the BFM 2000 says women can’t be “Senior Pastors” - do you not have a problem with the BFM 2000?” Yes, but not in the way you think. I would much rather remove ALL TITLES OF “SENIOR PASTORS” from both men and women when we talk about the KINGDOM.

But you might respond. “Your church gives you the “title” Lead Pastor?”

I answer: “It’s a cultural thing. It’s an organizational thing. It is NOT a biblical thing. We do a lot of things at our local 501-C3 non-profit that are not found in Scripture (pews, Sunday School, titles, etc...) but I will never be guilty of treating women as if they are second class citizens and under my “authority” because that is not even close to what Scripture teaches.

Victorious said...

Anonymous 8:15 p.m.

Yes, what you left out is the word SUBMIT!

I didn't leave it out...Ephesians 5:21..."Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God" speaks to mutual submission does it not?

And you gloss over the qualifications in 1 Timothy as if they don't matter. The man must RULE his household well, which also screams he must LEAD his family!

I didn't gloss over them, I simply balanced them with same admonishment to wives found in 1 Tim. 5:14. But you seemed to gloss over the mutual authority found in 1 Cor. 7.

By the way, there is no hierarchy in the Trinity, but there is willing submission of the Son to the Father.

Yes, Jesus willingly took on the form of a human being and in that form, He submitted to God. He emptied Himself, humbled Himself, and was obedient.

Php 2:7  ...but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 
Php 2:8  Being found in appearance as a man , He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Jesus willingly became human and could sympathize with our weaknesses and was tempted as we are tempted, but remained sinless.




 

Anonymous said...

Victorious,

May I suggest a serious study of the Greek word kelphale, which is used in Ephesians 5:23. It is Louw-Nida Numeber 89:33 and is explained as "one who is of supreme or pre-eminent status, in view of authority to order or command — ‘one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over' (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, 738).

By the way, this is the exact same Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 11:3. While you want to say it is source, you run into a serious theological problem when you say the source of Christ is God.

For what it is worth, source is not listed as a possible meaning for kelphale in the Standard Lexicon for New Testament Greek by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker. Nor do the older New Testament lexicons by Thayer or Cremer list such a sense; nor does the lexicon to the papyri by Moulton and Milligan. I already gave you what Louw and Nida said.

Anonymous said...

Victorious,

I didn't gloss mutual submission, I included verse 21.

Of course there is mutual authority and mutual submission within a marriage. Trust me, I know, I have been married 32 years. Just to give you an example, I really want to go hiking this weekend. My wife and I were planning to leave tomorrow and go overnight. She just came into my study and asked if I would be terribly upset if we postponed our trip because she really didn't feel up to taking a hike. I said "No woman, we are going for a hike whether you like or or not!" No way! I said, "Of course not. We can postpone it. What would you like to do instead."

Once again, our example is Jesus. We are not to Lord over others, we are to serve. But there are roles. The husband is the head of his family. God the Father is the head of Christ. Yes, there is clearly mutual submission within the Trinity. But Jesus always submitted to and gave deference to God the Father and He is no less God because He did.

Victorious said...

Anonymous,

May I suggest a serious study of the Greek word kelphale, which is used in Ephesians 5:23.

If both husband and wife are to submit to one another, are you saying that the wife has a different kind of submission and that the husband is exempt from Ephesians 5:21? And have you noticed that although Paul no doubt understood the meaning of the word "authority", did not use it anywhere referencing a male or a husband?

Proper understanding of scripture demands we not base doctrine on one word or even one verse alone but rather arrive at an understanding based on the whole counsel of God. Good hermeneutic takes the grammatical, historical, cultural and context into consideration. Also important is considering how the author intended the words to be understood by those being spoken to.

Paul was exemplary in his understanding of OT Patriarchy, the Law of Moses, the Oral Law, the Messianic prophecies and finally came to know the "Good News" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His progressive correcting of the previous errors in man's desire for power and authority over others. Jesus called us friends. He spoke stern words for those who desired authority over others; rules and traditions that were burdensome; and those who placed importance on status, gender, and ethnicity.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree in this matter of male/female; husband/wife issues.

Anonymous said...

Brother, I am OK with agreeing to disagree, but I think the dialog is important. We both can't be right. I may be wrong. Lord knows I have been before. I am not infallible.

You did say one thing that I need to clarify, and this will be my last post and comment of the night. You said Jesus "spoke stern words for those who desired authority over others." I am not seeking authority over my wife or the members of the church I have the privilege of serving. I feel I was given that responsibility by the Lord. When it comes to my role as an elder, doesn't Hebrews 13:17 say I am going to give an account for how I lead those He has entrusted to my care? How can I or any other elder be held accountable for something I don't have the authority to do? Clearly, I am to watch out for their souls. I am not to do that by lording over them, but by loving and serving them. But regardless, I do have a position of authority, and if you are a pastor or elder or husband, so do you.

Blessings and Good night!

Wade Burleson said...

Anonymous,

Thank you for your comments and your spirit willing to dialogue on these matters. Though we may never agree on this issue, I am more than happy to cooperate with fellow believers in Christ for missions and Kingdom work who have the kind of spirit you do. I’m not attempting to convince you that I am right - I, too, could be wrong. But I’ve “searched the Scriptures” and have come to my views after believing the way you believe for more than a few decades. I’m advocating cooperation and refraining from separating in fellowship from fellow believers who disagree.

You ask about Hebrews 13:17.

If you can, watch this video - I address every question you ask:

https://margmowczko.com/wade-burleson-christian-leadership-hebrews-13/

Deana Floro said...

Great comments from all. I definitely am not a theologian, which I will leave to my husband who spent years in studying and obtaining his degrees in ministry. He will be the first to say, he doesn't and will never understand all of scripture. However, I am a woman and educated in my field. God made male and he made female. Each do have their roles. As a Labor/Delivery nurse, I see the difference quite clearly. You might see where I am going. Only women can become pregnant and have a baby. Men can never be female naturally nor women become men. We do see our society trying to achieve that feat. However, we have our own specific chromosome sets and cannot be changed naturally. We have our own roles as God made us. I personally do not have a problem with women teaching men, etc. or men being my head of spiritual authority. However, this was the culture as we older ones grew up. Please stop criticising those who have taught the scriptures in that way of authority. As one grows older, he/she becomes wise and ideologies change with maturity. Society unfortunately, is attempting to change the natural role of men and women. Men in my eyes are becoming more feminine and women, male. God created a perfect order. Thus the reason of male and female on the ark for reproduction. Scripture will be interpreted as God enlightens. Allow God to speak to us all as God sees fit. No one's interpretation is 100% correct. When we see Jesus face to face, the mysteries of God will come to light. In the meantime, I choose to approach God with a child-like faith and the excitement of knowing him further. As one of my favorite teaching pastor of all time has quoted in one of his most recent posts, "As Christians, we recognize we live in a secular world that hates God and lives in moral relativism. Being Kingdom kids, we are to choose what is right for us regardless, and then EXPECT CULTURAL DISSENSION." We SBC folks too are having cultural dissension. Allow us all to choose what is "right" for us. In the end, God makes all wrongs, right. It's the heart or intention of the heart of what God sees. What is your "heart" intention?

RB Kuter said...

No such thing as "ordination"? It's a matter of definition and true, there is no word "ordination", but still, there are distinctive positions which have specified qualifications and there is the model of there being a process of those who occupy those positions going through an examination to assure they meet the qualifications. We just label it, "ordination".

Some similarly say the word "trinity" is not found in Scripture, but the concept is certainly laid out.

Jerry Schultz said...

I appreciate your attention to the issue of women teaching in the church and specifically women teaching theology to men. I began to be very concerned about the silencing of women while I was a student at SWBTS from 2012-2014. The New Testament clearly shows women teaching key points of theology, in public gatherings, to men. INCARNATION: Luke 2:36-38 shows Anna telling ALL people the good news about the Birth of Jesus, starting in the temple. RESURRECTION: Luke 24:10 records Mary Magdalene, Joana, Mary and other women, having been sent BY Jesus and an angel to the place where the disciples were gathered together, telling the apostles themselves that Jesus had risen from the grave. That is literally, the 1st meeting of the Christian Church. SALVATION/THE HOLY SPIRIT: 1 Corinthians 16:9 tells us that Priscilla and Aquila hosted a church in their home and Acts 18 records them teaching Apollos in that home about the deeper things of Christ, beyond John's baptism of repentance. God has always entrusted important theology to women to teach, the same as he has done with men. If you're interested in the lengthy version which addresses all of the fun controversial passages, here is a link: http://thetrustworthyword.blogspot.com/2018/05/can-women-teach-theology-to-men.html

Rex Ray said...

First of all, Paul is my biggest hero in the Bible. but he is not God or Jesus.

Neither held his hand. He wrote what he believed.

What if I said, “I do not let women teach men or have authority over them…” (1 Timothy 2:12 NLT) because the cow jumped over the moon?

Paul did not mention the cow or the moon, but he said something about as stupid:

“For God made Adam first, and afterwards he made Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.” (I Timothy 2:12-14 NLT)

Eve was deceived but Adam’s sin was deliberate. Which was worse?

Patterson had “I do not let women teach men or have authority over them…” burned into his brain.

Anonymous said...

First and foremost, the authority behind Truth is the Truth of the message...not the greatness of the message. MLK was a great leader and a great communicator...his message wasn't great because of his greatness but because of it's truthfulness.

Secondly, the only thing inherently authoritative is the Word of God...no messenger male or female is inherently authoritatively--merely broken vessels delivering an unbroken truth.

You're points are weak brother. I've seen more compelling arguments from atheists.

You clearly don't know PJD or anything about The Summit Church. Elyse was amazing that weekend..."she was seated"--is that seriously apart of your argument? she was seat because it was an interview...what PJD has done with many other leaders (mostly male) go watch more sermons (and learn more about PJD and the church before you start posting blogs). You clearly don't know that PJD brought in a prominent female leader to teach his staff and his church on the necessity of elevating women leaders in the church. You clearly don't know how many female leaders there are on staff at The Summit shaping the church and it's mission.

All you seem to clearly know is the PJD has a different view than you on roles for women in the local church...a view that isn't in line with the inherent Word of God...though if you call messengers of the Word inherent, you probably have a low view of Scripture. You should probably preface your post with that little reality.

You'd serve the Kingdom of God best if you just deleted this entire post.

Anonymous said...

Correction Sir -

The text is singular not plural, i,e. “a woman and a man”.

Christiane said...

IF a faith community needs to give a title to it's minister, let it be 'the servant of the servants of God'

"servus servorum Dei" is a very old phrase in the Church and corresponds with the sacred Scriptures which tell us "he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

Kruppe said...

I understand the necessity of allowing anonymous comments, but it's a little dizzying to keep up with.

Regarding kephale as "head" or "source", Anonymous@ 8:49PM, wrote, "May I suggest a serious study of the Greek word kelphale, which is used in Ephesians 5:23. It is Louw-Nida Numeber 89:33 and is explained as "one who is of supreme or pre-eminent status, in view of authority to order or command — ‘one who is the head of, one who is superior to, one who is supreme over' (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, New York: United Bible Societies, 1996, 738)."

Though I've seen the kephale-as-source argument in the literature, I think this Anonymous (henceforth, Anon1) is right. I don't have Nida-Louw, but BDAG does not list "source" as a possible translation. LSJ (the big one, Great Scott) does list it as a possible translation, but this is rarer.

However, it's not entirely clear, either, that it strongly implies authority over another. The best article I could find on short notice is here: https://juniaproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Cervin-Sig-of-Kephale.pdf (best if you have Greek, but perhaps understandable if you don't).

While it is admirable to focus on what is exactly entailed in passages like 1 Cor 11:2-16, Eph 5:22 et al, it neglects equally significant passages such as Galatians 3:28, Genesis 1:27, Eph 4:1-16, the stories of Deborah, Huldah, and Priscilla, the mention of Junia and Phoebe. These have weight, too, and must be considered also.

Kruppe said...

Anonymous@10:24:00 PM says (henceforth Anon2), "First and foremost, the authority behind Truth is the Truth of the message...not the greatness of the message. MLK was a great leader and a great communicator...his message wasn't great because of his greatness but because of it's truthfulness."

Wonderful, this is what Wade concluded when he wrote, "He is the Truth; and if He is the topic of the message, the authority of the message comes from Him, not the messenger." You're using different words to get to the same concept. No problem there.

Anon2 continues, "Secondly, the only thing inherently authoritative is the Word of God...no messenger male or female is inherently authoritatively--merely broken vessels delivering an unbroken truth."

I don't disagree and I doubt our host would either. But, I don't think you're following him here. His point is that complementarians like JD Greear argue that Christian men, by virtue of their being men, have inherent authority over others, meaning women and children. This isn't really contestable.

Anon2, "You're points are weak brother. I've seen more compelling arguments from atheists."

You haven't really demonstrated this, you've asserted this. It's meaningless, unfortunately. And as an aside, atheists aren't stupid, so I don't know why you include this. Given Western intellectual history, which has produced men like Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Camus, and Sarte, among others, it is no shame to say there are more compelling arguments out there from atheists, as some painfully brilliant men and women have believed no God exists. I happen to think their arguments ultimately fail, but it isn't from intellectual poverty due to their atheism, as you seem to imply.

Anon2, "You clearly don't know PJD or anything about The Summit Church. Elyse was amazing that weekend..."she was seated"--is that seriously apart of your argument? she was seat because it was an interview...what PJD has done with many other leaders (mostly male) go watch more sermons (and learn more about PJD and the church before you start posting blogs). You clearly don't know that PJD brought in a prominent female leader to teach his staff and his church on the necessity of elevating women leaders in the church. You clearly don't know how many female leaders there are on staff at The Summit shaping the church and it's mission."

In all seriousness, this is good to hear. But again, the problem begins with Greear's own writings, as is pointed out in the blog post.

Anon2, "All you seem to clearly know is the PJD has a different view than you on roles for women in the local church...a view that isn't in line with the inherent Word of God...though if you call messengers of the Word inherent, you probably have a low view of Scripture. You should probably preface your post with that little reality"

Respectfully, this is incoherent. Did you mean to type "inerrant"? I'm assuming so, given the statement about a low view of scripture and the "inherent" word of God.

Wade Burleson said...

Kruppe,

Thank you. Spot on.

Jon L. Estes said...

Kruppe,

“I don't disagree and I doubt our host would either. But, I don't think you're following him here. His point is that complementarians like JD Greear argue that Christian men, by virtue of their being men, have inherent authority over others, meaning women and children. This isn't really contestable.”

My understanding of JDG’s position is within the context of the church and home but it is not a dictatorship. I sense he and many others understand this role of men is more about obedience to the Word and accountability before God to love their wife and His church as He loves His church.

Those who make the complimentarian position about dictatorship or power are wrong. Their numbers are dwindling.

I would wish that the idea that all complimentarians are evil power brokers and dictators would cease for it just isn’t true.

Jon L. Estes said...

Read this on FB today. It really got me to look at the faults in my own life and stop focusing on the faults of others.

God uses people who fail, cause there aren't any other kind around. - Charles Spurgeon

Rex Ray said...

Jon,

Good quote from Spurgeon.


I’ll continue my one person conversation on who was the ‘greatest sinner’ Adam or Eve.

Eve blamed the serpent. “…The serpent deceived me…” (Genesis 3:13 NLT)
Adam blamed Eve and God: “…It was the woman YOU gave me…” (Genesis 3:12 NLT)

BTW, what source did God use to make man and woman? Man was made from dirt and Eve was made from refined dirt. :)

Patterson’s BFM 2000 states: “A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to LEAD his family. A wife is to SUBMIT herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.” [Does this mean she’s the church and he is Jesus?]

"She…has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.” [Does this mean she is to stay in the kitchen with Martha?]

Anonymous said...

So much to say here....would love a live, moderated forum to bring these issues forward with panelist from both sides of the issue. Male and female panelist for a change. Would someone please host this and provide opportunities for contributors to ask questions.

I would line up the panelist like this: Wade Burleson, Dr. Giles, Al Moore, Thabiti Anaybwile for starters.

Regarding Rexis comment… In a time where women were not taught, and the rabbis only had men sitting at their feet as the disciples, Jesus invited Mary to sit at his feet and learn… a disciple, and he told the women it was better than domestic duties. Just think about that with all this role discussion.

I wish I had more time for this post but I’ll add one more thing - the bookends for Ephesians text...Paul said at the end, in all this, I’m really talking about Christ and the church but nevertheless respect and love. At the beginning of the text he said to submit to one another.

I sat across the table from a well meaning pastor recently who said it was his responsibility to present his wife pure and blamemess before the Lord based on this text. He was very sincere and well-meaning but sincerely wrong. I said, “Brother, that’s not your job, that’s Christ’s and that work has already been done. Please, lift that burden right off your shoulders for you are now competing with Christ and His work.”

Wade Burleson said...

Rex,

“Does this mean she is to stay in the kitchen...””

Yes.

Wade Burleson said...

That’s why SWBTS started a homemaking school.

Anonymous said...

I spoke to my 88 year old mother. She knew PP and his father long ago when they were at FBC Beaumont, TX.
She said this concerning the situation...." Why did it take this long for the Baptists THIS long to figure out what Patterson was? I knew this 60 years ago."

Anon1 said...

Wade,

Thank you for you very kind and gracious words. I appreciate you more than you know. Your stance during your brief tenure on the IMB Board is what initially got my attention. I have followed you, though sporadic at times, ever since. Thank you for your service to our Lord, His church, and the SBC.

Unfortunately, for some reason, I can't get the link you shared to work. I really would like to hear more of what you have to say, particularly since you were once a complimentarian yourself. As I will discuss in my response to Kruppe, the biggest thing for me is the Greek word kephale. Maybe you can help me see what I am missing?

Kruppe,

In formulating my own views on this subject, I did an in depth study of the word kephale. If you have been tracking this debate for any periord of time, you probably realize most of the arguments eventually hinge on this word. What I found in my study is to say that the usage as source is rare is an understatement. Within what is considered biblically relevant writings, there is only one clear example of kephale meaning source and that is from the extrabiblical book of Herodotus. In every example in the Scripture, it means authority. In every example in the Septuigent it means authority. For the early church Fathers it meant authority. And most importantly, and this is the lynchpin for me, in 1 Corinthins 11:3 it must mean authority. To translate kephale as source in 1 Corinthians 11:3 leads to a serious theological problem. If "the source of Christ is God," then Jesus is not God. If Jesus is not God, then we all may as well quit this non-sensical banter because none of us have any hope whatsoever. We are all totally and completely lost in the quagmire of our own sin.

I totally agree with you! I too hope and pray "that the idea that all complimentarians are evil power brokers and dictators would cease for it just isn’t true." This is why I feel the Lord led me to start to post. It is also why I say what went on with Paige Patterson is a sin issue, not a doctrinal issue. Interestingly, for Bill Hybels, it is accepted as a sin issue. But for Paige Patterson, it is a doctrinal issue. Brothers and Sisters, not all complimentarians believe and act like Paige Patterson!

Jon L. Estes said...

Rex,

Sorry for the delayed response. My geographic location is way ahead, in time, than the US.

A couple of things.

1. The BF&M2K is not Patterson’s. The SBC approved it... therefor they own it.

2. I struggle with making one sin greater than another on a spiritual level.

3. Genesis 3:17 is an interesting verse.

4. I believe God is clear that Eve was to be Adams helpmate. Such a term is not used in reverse.

Sallie Borrink said...

Wade,

A couple suggestions...

If there is any way you can enable a quoting feature on your website dashboard, it would be so helpful. It would make the discussions much easier to follow.

I understand the need to make anonymous comments, but requiring people to use a pseudonym even if it is something like Oak Tree or In the Kitchen or From My Library would also make things a lot easier to follow.

Sallie

Jon L. Estes said...

Sallie,

Two good suggestions. I don’t even read anon posts. I probably wouldn’t read or reply to any post I think the person is hiding behind a pseudonym. That’s just me.

Wade Burleson said...

Sallie, great suggestion. Let me see what I can do.

Christiane said...

Here's to the day when women will no longer be seen as 'lesser' beings having to 'submit' on 'command' to anyone;
but as human persons made in the image of God, possessing a soul from God;
and therefore worthy of respect for that reason alone


A human person has a conscience given to them by God and if required to 'submit' to someone who asks them to do what is wrong,
then they may follow their conscience instead because their conscience answers to a higher authority.

This 'submitting' thing needs to be re-examined, as marriage calls for something far more from people than to possibly give up their own will that calls them to do what is right . . . . that is not an act of loving-kindness and it is not a mark of MUTUAL LOVE of either to other in a Christian marriage. Mutual self-giving does not ask of a person to not respect their own conscience.

Let people in a marriage 'give' freely to each other out of love; not by 'command' of a man-made rule, but as marriage was meant to be: something of mutual self-giving out of love only for the sake of the other; as 'love' means to want the good of the other for the sake of the other unconditionally

Rex Ray said...

Jon,

Thanks for the reply.

“The BF&M2K is not Patterson’s. The SBC approved it…therefore they own it.”

How can ‘it’ be legal when ALL churches in the SBC were EXCLUDED? The legal way ‘business’, motions, and resolutions are passed in the SBC is by each church voting on them and their messengers are to vote the decision of their church. That’s democracy.

All presidents of State Conventions was the committee that wrote the BF&M 1963. But when Patterson was President of the SBC in 1999 he picked 15 ‘friends’ to write the BF&M 2000. (I’d bet everything was with Patterson’s approval.) The ‘1963’ was open to the public, but ‘2000’ was behind closed doors. In fact, they said, “We can’t tell you but you’re going to like it.”

“I struggle with making one sin greater than another on a spiritual level.”

Jon, do disagree with God when he names seven sins he hates in Proverbs 6:16-19?

Jon L. Estes said...

Rex,

Nothing illegal. It was voted on by the structure the by-laws require. We will vote for a President and legally, he will be the Preiden for the alotted term. Not all churches will vote on this but he will be the SBC President.

I didn’t say it couldn’t be different levels of sin but that I struggle with the concept.

The Proverb you speak of lists six specific things God hates and one specific person. Interesting.

Anonymous said...

Paige Patterson has now been fired from Southwestern with no title, compensation, or housing. Good. It is long overdue. This has given some to have hope in the future of Southwestern. I, however, have no such optimism. What about the seminary professors who remain at Southwestern, especially those who have been with Patterson for many years? None of Patterson's lack of ethics or treatment of women over the years is a surprise to them. They have lived with it and have openly and publicly supported his leadership--many of them for decades. Now they are the ones on social media calling for repentance, pointing out the importance of high ethical standards, and claiming they won't defend themselves because they are only interested in defending the glory of God. I suspect their unwillingness to defend themselves has nothing to do with God's glory, but rather because they have no defense. They insinuate by their public statements now they disapproved of Paige Patterson's leadership. Why have they been silent until now? Was it a lack of moral courage that caused them to be silent until Patterson was removed, or were they silent because they actually agreed with what he was doing. Either way, it disqualifies them from being the kind of people we need teaching young men and women how to be ministers. I don't see how Southwestern Seminary can have a hopeful future when the professors and administration who served under Patterson's leadership for many years remain. So Southwestern Professors and administrators, resign or defend yourselves publicly. God's glory will be fine. But don't try and pretend you were unaware or are now innocent.

Christiane said...

I don't think those 'trustees', who failed to confront Paige Patterson over the years,did him any favors.

Christiane said...

http://sbcvoices.com/statement-by-kevin-ueckert-chair-of-trustees-at-swbts/

Christiane said...

About that link,
http://sbcvoices.com/statement-by-kevin-ueckert-chair-of-trustees-at-swbts/

I urge people to read Brent Hobbs' comment. I agree with him. I know that the Good Lord is the only One who knows the heart of a person, but Brent's comment does give us insight into the mind of Paige Patterson, and it is 'chilling' indeed. God have mercy.

Rex Ray said...

Jon,

It’s been said, “Fear not those who argue with you; fear those who dodge.”

You did not answer the ‘bad’ things I mentioned on how the BFM 2000 was passed, so I’ll ask ‘yes or no’ questions.

1. Do you believe churches in the SBC should know what is to be voted on?
2. Was that done with the BFM 2000?
3. Do you believe one man should pick a small group of friends to change the BFM 1963?
4. Was that done with the BFM 2000?
5. Should churches select the next SBC president?

I can’t find from Google what men wrote the BFM 2000. Jon, would you tell who they are and their connection to Patterson?



HEY CHRISTINE,

Thanks for the link that tells what the Trustees of SWBTS tell of the slimy truth about Patterson.

Maybe, I should ask you what men wrote the BFM 2000.

Jon L. Estes said...

Rex,

Be patient and I will answer your questions. It is 5 am here and I just got up. We have church this morning and then our AWANA closing awards afternoon. I am not sure if I will get back to this site today.

Have a great day.

oscarspaz said...

SWBTS released a statement about EC's decision on May 30

https://swbts.edu/news/releases/statement-kevin-ueckert-chairman-board-trustees/

Christiane said...

LOL

Hey REX RAY,

you wrote, "Maybe, I should ask you what men wrote the BFM 2000."

I'll see what I can do. It may take a while. Be patient. It may take a very long while. :)

Jon L. Estes said...

Rex-

Here is link to committee.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfmcommittee.asp

Christiane said...

Hey REX RAY,

i found this concerning a preliminary committee:

"The 1999 session of the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, adopted the following motion addressed to the President of the Convention:

"I move that in your capacity as Southern Baptist Convention chairman, you appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message statement with the responsibility to report and bring any recommendations to this meeting next June in Orlando."

President Paige Patterson appointed the committee as follows: Max Barnett (OK), Steve Gaines (AL), Susie Hawkins (TX), Rudy A. Hernandez (TX), Charles S. Kelley, Jr. (LA), Heather King (IN), Richard D. Land (TN), Fred Luter (LA), R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (KY), T. C. Pinckney (VA), Nelson Price (GA), Adrian Rogers (TN), Roger Spradlin (CA), Simon Tsoi (AZ), Jerry Vines (FL). Adrian Rogers (TN) was appointed chairman."

Here's the link:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/baptistfaith.html

Not sure if this is THE final committee, but it's something that might help your search. :)

Christiane said...

Hi Jon Estes,

Thanks for helping Rex. I'm not sure I gave him what he needed. God Bless!

RB Kuter said...

Have you all checked out Sharaya Colter's posted defense of Paige Patterson and condemnation of the SWBTS Board of Trustees post on "SBC Issues"?

One of my questions is, "Are the letters from the SEBTS rape victim part of the documents allegedly stolen from SEBTS Archives by this lady's husband?

Another question I posed was, "Why are you upset by the Trustees strong-arm methods against Paige? After all HE is responsible for all those serving as Trustees of ALL SBC Boards AND they simply used the same tactics that Paige has always used!"

Check out her explanation of things at:

https://sbcissues.wordpress.com/2018/05/31/the-untold-truth-facts-surrounding-paige-patterson-and-his-removal-from-swbts-by-sharayah-colter/

Mbill0327 said...

Dont worry. They will be gone. It will prob take 3-5 yrs but they have been noticed

Leland Bryant Ross said...

As I just noted at BaptistLife, while it is encouraging that the Board of SWBTS finally severed ties with and support of Patterson, looking at Dr. Ueckert's explanatory statement on the firing, "The next to last paragraph destroyed any claim to repentance on the Board's, or at least Ueckert's (sp?), part. If they were being so ethically driven and biblically forthright as all that, then what on Earth (or in Heaven above) were they doing a week ago when they voted him his cushy non-severance package??!!"

Curtis Beaird said...

It has been thirty-nine years since the tag team of Pressler / Patterson announced that they were "Going for the jugular". I wondered then and wonder now; not that men lust after power - "How to get it - How to use it". But, how can so many become so gullible, so quickly, for so long, and in such large numbers?

I would never have considered this interpretation when I was younger. But, I'm coming to understand how easy it is going to be for many to accept the mark of the beast. I really can't believe I just wrote that.

We have a hard rain coming.

Jessica said...

"...but she must not do so in a way that “mimics” the teaching authority of a male."

Can anyone expound upon what mimicking the teaching authority of a male looks like?



"A teaching elder at Summit (e.g. J.D.) set the context, invited Elyse up to ask her a series of questions, and then (I) wrapped up the service by applying her words specifically to The Summit Church. The elder’s introduction, presence on stage, and application at the end “officialized” the explanation and exhortation given by her for The Summit Church, and made clear she was not teaching (as one with authority) in our church. She explained the content, but we, the Summit elders, bore the weight of responsibility for teaching."

So, what exactly was the purpose of having Elyse come speak if everything she said was required to be echoed by a male elder?


Rex Ray said...

RB,

Good to hear you again.

In my book, this lady painting Patterson as a Saint went far to much too be truthful.

Jon, thanks for the link telling who was the committee that wrote the BFM 2000.

Patterson teamed up with Paul Pressler to get Adrian Rogers elected as President of the SBC in 1979. Rogers was pastor of Belleview Baptist Church that had a congregation of 29,000.

The number of messengers was 45,519 in Dallas, Texas. I was there but not as a messenger. I helped a friend I’d met on a mission trip to Japan give a paper he had written to messengers as they arrived. The paper was against INERRANCY of the Bible. Some authority ran us out yelling, “We have our inerrancy and nobody’s going to take it away from us!” We handed them out on the sidewalk.

Rogers appointed committee members to replace the trustees who ran the denomination’s six seminaries, national agencies, and ministries.

Bill J. Leonard, a church historian is dean of Wake Forest University Divinity School and author of “Baptist in America”. “Mr. Rogers was particularly involved in overhauling the Southern Baptist seminaries and curriculums, said Dr. Leonard, who was pushed out along with other moderates. He said that from 1990 to 1995, about 80 percent of the faculty members in the six seminaries either were forced out or took early retirement as a result of the conservative takeover.”

Patterson was president of the SBC in 1999. He appointed a “Study Committee” of 15 selected people which wrote the BFM 2000 which said only men could serve as pastors, and that women were mandated by the Bible to “submit” to their husbands. Rogers was the chairman. Also on the committee were Albert Mohler and Steve Gaines.

Mohler teamed up with Patterson and demanded the IMB remove women missionaries to lower positions if their positions were over men.

Steve Gaines is now President of the SBC. He selected Patterson to be chairman of a prayer group to pray for more souls to be saved.

BTW, in 1994 our mission group remodeled small buildings of a youth camp which was owned by Rodger’s church. We attended his church and were amazed how many people were there. He had a booming voice. I gave his secretary my 20 page book: “The Truth of Acts…The Devil’s greatest victory was confusing his greatest defeat; Calvary”

Nancy2 said...

From the Ueckert statement: "In addition, as previously disclosed, a female student at SWBTS reported to Dr. Patterson that she had been raped in 2015. Police were notified of that report. But in connection with that allegation of rape, Dr. Patterson sent an email (the contents of which were shared with the Board on May 22) to the Chief of Campus Security in which Dr. Patterson discussed meeting with the student alone so that he could “break her down” and that he preferred no officials be present."

"shared with the Board on May 22", and they still gave PP his golden parachute..... This tells the slimy truth about the SWBTS Biard, too!

Tom Parker said...

Nancy2 those trustees should feel very ashamed about how they handled the Patterson situation, but IMO they will not. Patterson IMO taught them how to handle things over the years.

The lost world is looking at the SBC and it is not for goods things.

It should be a very interesting convention. The first interesting one in years.

Jessica said...

I noticed the May 22nd date, as well. Inexcusable.

Sallie Borrink said...

Jessica said...
"...but she must not do so in a way that “mimics” the teaching authority of a male."

Can anyone expound upon what mimicking the teaching authority of a male looks like?

"A teaching elder at Summit (e.g. J.D.) set the context, invited Elyse up to ask her a series of questions, and then (I) wrapped up the service by applying her words specifically to The Summit Church. The elder’s introduction, presence on stage, and application at the end “officialized” the explanation and exhortation given by her for The Summit Church, and made clear she was not teaching (as one with authority) in our church. She explained the content, but we, the Summit elders, bore the weight of responsibility for teaching."

So, what exactly was the purpose of having Elyse come speak if everything she said was required to be echoed by a male elder?

---------------------------------------------------

There are a number of ways to answer that.

My guess is in their mind they see a woman with a message, they want to "encourage" women, and so they invite a woman to "speak" to the congregation. In their minds, they have done something good and even noble by allowing a woman the opportunity to "speak" in the gathering of the church. They want to recognize women are important and can have a "message" to bring.

This is where the cognitive dissonance develops, however, the more someone thinks through these things. You see women who have been clearly gifted by the Holy Spirit, but you cannot allow them to fully exercise those gifts because everything must be filtered through the lens of ultimate male authority. Everything in the Bible and in the gathering of the body must be viewed through a complementarian lens.

So the leaders see a gifted woman with a biblical message to bring and they somehow must develop a protocol that (in their mind) honors their complementarian framework but also allows in some way to acknowledge that there are at least a few gifted women.

Instead of focusing on the fact that God has gifted a woman to clearly articulate the authority of the Gospel message, they focus on the fact that the authority of men must never be compromised.

When Christianity is viewed with a complementarian lens, everything comes back to the first principle of male authority. That is why someone like Denny Burk will only celebrate complemetnarian women who advance the Gospel because they are in their proper sphere. He has stated openly he believes people should not celebrate egalitarian women who advance the Gospel. In his mind, women functioning in their complementarian sphere under male authority is more important than the Gospel being shared.


Sallie Borrink said...

Here is the link to the Denny Burk article. He is very clear in the comments his view on this. The entire comment thread is very interesting.

http://www.dennyburk.com/christianity-todays-50-women-to-watch/

This is where I wrote about it when I asked a question he never really answered (like many others in the comments on his post) - Should a woman proclaim the Gospel to men about to die? If not, why not? If so, why can't she proclaim the same Gospel from a pulpit?

https://awomansfreedominchrist.com/should-women-proclaim-the-gospel-to-men/

Jessica said...

Yes!!!

It's almost as if they have experienced a woman gifted in this way and are wrestling with how that fits into their complementary framework.

RB Kuter said...

Curtis wrote: "But, I'm coming to understand how easy it is going to be for many to accept the mark of the beast. I really can't believe I just wrote that."

You know, Curtis, I understand what you mean. It is not to say that those who are so mysteriously enchanted by what appears to be some sort of mystical power of Paige are not followers of Jesus. You are not accusing them of being someone who might deny Christ to follow someone else. I believe you are are saying that you see similarities in today's Christendom and the times when many will submit to the mark of the charismatic "beast" of the future.

A situation like this when one or two leaders do seem to have a cultic power over so many followers that results in such amazing control being acquired over an institution of millions of Christian constituents cannot help but portray to us how easily things could occur to fulfill the prophecies of the "end times". It is almost "cultic" in nature.

As Rex Ray correctly depicts, one after another Southern Baptist celebrity pastors who were/are respected leaders over congregations of the tens of thousands groveled at the feet of these power players. How could they be so deceived? Am "I" deceived in coming to that conclusion about this? I would like to hope that I am incorrect and sometimes I even try to convince myself that I must be wrong about these men who have such stellar reputations as being evangelical giants.

It shows how vulnerable we all are in getting caught up in worldly powers that are not from God's making. I see myself as being vulnerable when I too frequently give blind allegiance to politicians or others. I recognize my carnal tendency to jump on the bandwagon of one side or the other in this debate occurring in the Southern Baptist Convention.

It sure convicts me of my need to pause and spend time with The Lord to seek His position on things. Remain silent to preserve peace? Speak out to oppose injustice? God help us to be meek like lambs and discerning as serpents, all to YOUR glory.

Christiane said...

" Remain silent to preserve peace? Speak out to oppose injustice? "

IF the injustice is towards the innocent and especially towards the helpless,
THEN by all means, speak out

to be silent witness to abuse is to condone it and support it

IF you are being slandered, belittled, put-down, lied about, etc. etc.
THEN you have the option of not responding except to pray for the perpetrator
(you CAN be humble . . . you will appear 'calm' and it will seem dignified in the face of another person's inability to be civil towards you, which makes them seem out-of-control, which they may be if that behavior is a 'norm' for them, sadly, due to emotional or mental problems

Rex Ray said...

QUIZ

Does anyone remember Ronnie Floyd praying about Obama?

First he prayed God would remove him, then changed that God would have him impeached.

If that’s not correct please tell me.

Anonymous said...

I haven't been a "Baptist" of any kind for more than 20 years, so maybe I'm not understanding something. Did I read correctly that of 2 potential candidates at the Convention, in your opinion, there would be a choice between a Calvinist and an Arminian? I grew up in an Arminian denomination, so I know how that went (or didn't!), and so I can't even imagine how "Baptist" and "Arminian" can even co-exist. But maybe the understanding of that has changed over the years? Having said all that, I have been following your blogs, and you are SO on target. I GET it! I am finding this SBC thing so scary, and I'm afraid to think of what 'might' or 'could' happen. I read something today--someone said there should be silence and repentance at the Convention. We'll soon learn. But could you or somebody clarify the Calvinism and Arminianism of the 2 possible/potential candidates? Thanks, and blessings to you.

Steven Jones said...

Great conversation and well said Wade, thanks for your leadership. President of The Baptist Home, Missouri.

Leland Bryant Ross said...

It is not at all clear that there were no female apostles in New Testament Christianity. Romans 16:7, if you don't accept Mary Magdalene.

Leland Bryant Ross said...

And some of you who post as Anonymous might want to adopt an identity, because I assure you, someone who reads this thread is very likely to come to the well-documented conclusion that you don't know what you believe, though you're ever so certain of one thing, namely, that you're wrong and that you are chronically misconstruing your own positions.

Anonymous said...

Leland Bryant Ross: You're right, I will no longer be "anonymous", because I'm not the same as the other "anonymi". That IS the plural of anonymous, isn't it? LOL I'll figure out some other name.

Leland Bryant Ross said...

I'd go with "anonymice" if I weren't afraid people would think I was imitating Jon Estes's "Wadeites" (everybody knows the Bible calls them Burlegrandsons!)....

Mind you, I'm a pro-gay-marriage-and-ordination Northern Baptist Universalist ("Optimist", I prefer) who thinks the passage about all Scriptures being inspired and useful refers to the Koran too, and the Book of Mormon... So my opinions should quite rightly carry little weight here. But I appreciate Wade. ;-)

Leland Bryant Ross said...

Applies, I should have said, not refers. Paul had no more heard of Muhammad or Smith and their books than he had of the Bible.

Rex Ray said...

Leland Bryant Ross,

I’m glad you like Wade’s blog, but I think the only thing you’re right about is your opinion not having much weight here.

You said, “Paul had no more heard of Muhammad or Smith and their books than he had the Bible”.

I believe Paul had a better working knowledge of the Old Testament than any man except Jesus.

You’re right about Paul not knowing Muhammad since Paul died 568 years before he died, and 1780 years before Smith died.

Even though Paul never knew these men he spoke against them:

“I know false teachers, like vicious wolves will come…” (Acts 20:29)