Wednesday, January 24, 2007

A Knowledge of Our History Keeps Us Humble

The Southern Baptist Convention is a collection of eclectic, diverse churches who hold to the fundamentals of the Christian faith and the Baptist distinctive of believer's baptism. We are known for our belief in the sufficiency and inerrancy of the Word of God, and we willingly cooperate with each other for the purpose of missions and evangelism. Some wonderful work for God's kingdom at large is being accomplished through our cooperative ministry and service.

It has been the contention of some for the last year, including me, that certain leaders of our Southern Baptist Convention are taking us down a dangerous course of doctrinal conformity that far exceeds the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. The attempt to exclude Southern Baptists with a private prayer language from missionary service has been well documented. The attempt to force others to believe that the only legitimate Christian baptism is one that takes place in a Southern Baptist church or a church that believes in 'eternal security' has also been well documented. The refusal to hire professors because they are 'reformed' in their soteriology has not been as well documented but is very real. In addition, just as in the 70's some conservative Southern Baptists suspected all amillinialists as being liberals, there is a resurging belief among some strategically placed trustees that no Southern Baptist is a 'true conservative' unless he holds to a dispensational eschatology. Each of these examples is not necessarily cause for alarm in and of itself, but taken together there is a pattern that is developing in the Southern Baptist Convention that goes like this:

"If you have an opinion on an issue that is not addressed by the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, but it is a different opinion than 'the powers that be,' you must not be a true, conservative Southern Baptist."

The vast majority of Southern Baptists don't believe the above statement, and realize that our convention is built upon cooperation of diverse people and churches, but because most Christians in the SBC are quiet and humble followers, they allow leadership to direct the convention without any challenges. So even though most Southern Baptists may not believe the above statement, they choose to remain silent during the narrowing process, exhibit an unwillingness to defend those persons being excluded, and in general trust leadership to do 'the right thing.' Many followers take this particular course of action out of a belief that leadership is 'smarter than me,' and a few in leadership have no problems reminding the laity of that belief's validity. There has been within the culture of Southern Baptists, since the turn of the century, 'a hermanuetic of silence.' In other words, in the last five years institutional dogma that exceeds the BFM 2000, and the resulting exclusion of those who may disagree, is being met with little opposition.

The tide, however, may be turning. Men and women of the Southern Baptist Convention are beginning to wake up and realize where the intentional narrowing of parameters of cooperation and ministry is leading. Dr. Sheri Klouda's removal from Southwestern Theological Seminary, against her will and in violation of SWBTS faculty policy and procedures - which lay out clearly and precisely the reasons for a denial of tenure for tenure track faculty positions - is the most recent example of the damage caused by this narrowing. We must not lose sight that real people, including professors, God-called missionaries, pastors, and trustees are all being unnecesarily hurt by those who say, "you can't be one of us, because you don't believe like us." The view of some within our convention is that 'women should not teach men the Bible' and that 'women should not be in a position of authority over a man.' This view of women is not found in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, is contrary to the interpretation of the Bible that many of us in the Southern Baptist Convention hold, and is by its very nature exclusionary. At least two God-called, God-gifted, God-appointed (and trustee approved) female professors (not pastors) have been removed for gender. The story of Dr. Karen Bullock has not yet been publicly told, but very well soon may be. In addition, a God-called, God-gifted, God-appointed woman administrator at one of our agencies was removed from her position because of gender. Her removal came at the insistence of strategically placed male trustees, many of whom share an opinion regarding women consistent with what is being displayed at Southwestern. This action was in opposition to the agency's administration, but forced upon them by the trustee leadership. A coule of years ago a a very public white paper was distributed to trustees of the International Mission Board, with a cover letter by Paige Patterson, that denounced women 'strategic coordinators' and expressed concern in general about the role of women in missionary work overseas. People are beginning to connect the dots.

There are some who might say, "All that Paige Patterson and those who wish to determine the dogma of our convention are simply doing is upholding the inerrant, Word of God. To oppose them is to oppose God's Word." In other words, there are some who say, "The Bible contains eternal truths! It never changes! We should NEVER compromise our convictions or beliefs!" I agree -- if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something in the Bible is a principle for all time. I suspect that we may find one's interpretation of non-essential, disputable passages may change over time. Let me give you some examples.


The Southern Baptist Convention began in 1845 over a disagreement with the Northern Baptists whether or not slave-owners could be appointed missionaries. To justify the split with the north, Southern Baptist leaders noted that Paul and Barnabas had disagreed over the use of John Mark in mission service, and "two lines of service were opened for the benefit of the churches." These leaders hoped that "with no sharpness of contention, with no bitterness of spirit, . . . we may part asunder and open two lines of service to the heathen and the destitute."

It is also interesting to note that Southern Baptist leaders, at the time, defended slavery based upon their interpretation of the Bible. Southern delegates to the 1841 Triennial Convention of the Board "protested the abolitionist agitation and argued that, slavery . . . was not a sin according to the Bible." (J.G. Melton, "The Encyclopedia of American Religions," Volume I, Triumph Books, (1991), Volume II, Page 5)

One hundred and fifty years later, in 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially apologized, by resolution, for her previous views on the subject of slavery. The resolution declared that messengers, "unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin" and "lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest." It offered an apology to all African-Americans for "condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime" and repentance for "racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously."


There were dozens of books written by Southern Baptists in the late 1800's and early 1900's chastising Southern Baptists for activities of amusement participated in on Sundays. The inviolable law of God, said these Southern Baptist leaders, forbad anything but worship and rest on Sundays. Their views were based on an interpretation of the Word of God that the acts permitted by the Bible on the Sabbath, and those acts barred by the Bible on the Sabbath, were to be immutable and unchangeable. SBC Vice-President Dr. James Taylor wrote, "The fourth commandment does not institute a Sabbath, nor does it sanctify a day; it simply writes the Sabbath among the immutable things of God." (Joseph Judson Taylor, The Sabbatic Question, 1914, pp. 22, 24)

These deep convictions, based on a very specific interpretation of the Word of God, led Southern Baptists to adopt the following two statements as the 'offical' views of the Lord's Day in 1925 and 1963 respectively.

The 1925 Baptist Faith and Message and the Lord's Day

"The first day of the week is the Lord's day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, and by refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employments, works of necessity and mercy only excepted."

The 1963 Baptist Faith and Message and the Lord's Day

"The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, and by refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employments, work of necessity and mercy only being excepted."

Nearly forty years after the adoption of the 1963 BFM, the 2000 BFM was adopted by the conventon, and the interpretation of the Bible regarding the Lord's Day drastically changed. As you read the following statements regarding the Lord's Day, notice that what was once interpreted as an 'inviolate command of God's Word' has now become a matter of 'individual conscience.'

The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message and the Lord's Day

"The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should include exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private. Activities on the Lord's Day should be commensurate with the Christian's conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ."

Again, just like the interpretation of slavery once held by Southern Baptists, the official 'interpretation' and application of the Lord's Day has changed.


The BFM 2000 forbids women from serving as pastors. The current issue in the SBC, as well as the subject of this post, has nothing to do with the advocation of women pastors. The problem is that certain leaders in our convention are attempting to press the issue beyond the BFM 2000 and the prohibition of women serving in the 'office of pastor' and are now saying that no woman shall ever teach a man the Bible, or should be able to hold a 'position of authority' over a man - period. This view goes FAR beyond the BFM 2000 and its application to the local church, and is forced upon our convention's agencies to include a prohibition of female professors, female administrators, and other 'positions of authority' that have absolutely nothing to do with the 'office of pastor.'

What really makes me sad is that not ALL Southern Baptists hold this interpretation. In fact, I would go further and say that not even a majority of Southern Baptists would hold this view. Unfortunately, unless the past 'hermenuetic of silence' is broken, and pastors and laymen throughout the Southern Baptist Convention wake up and realize that what started out simply as a prohibition of women pastors is now being pressed to include women in all places of society, we may one day, again, have to issue an apology to the world for our unjust treatment of a class of people (women) that God tells us in His Word are equal to men.

Some argue that the 'eternal, inerrant Word of God forbids a woman from teaching a man, or holding a position of authority over a man - period. It has nothing to do with the 'church.' It should be an inviolable principle for culture.' Unfortunately, this defense of a Biblical interpretation regarding women sounds very familiar to the former SBC interpretation regarding slaves and the Lord's Day. Thank goodness Basil Manley, Jr. spoke out against slavery. Thank goodness the BFM 2000 Committee spoke out against mandatory prohibitions regarding the Lord's Day. Thank goodness Southern Baptist people are speaking out regarding this very narrow view of women.

I close with some very wise words from a Southern Baptist who has preached over five decades in the Southern Baptist Convention, and whose wisdom regarding what the Paul says to Timothy regarding a woman in I Timothy 2:12 ("I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence") is needed by us all within the Southern Baptist Convention.

"'If'…Paul was speaking to a specific woman [v11 “the woman”] who was involved in leading her husband by hook or crook into false doctrine, thus the reminder of Adam and Eve, after having herself come out of the worship of Diana, where women, in their false theology, were believed to have been created first and superior to men, [again, Adam and Eve set this straight] then he [Paul] is saying “the woman” [v12] is not to teach her “husband” [v12] this false theology, but is to learn under him in “quietness.” In fact, it would make sense of v15 where the “she” could refer back to the “woman ” of v11 and Paul is recommending that being a godly mom would be good for her and help both if “they” [husband and wife] continue in their faith love, and holiness of balanced living. Boy were they a messed up couple…”if” in fact, this is a correct interpretation.

It is that..”if”..along with the other references where women taught and led as did, it seems perhaps, Phebe in Romans 16:1-2 where the word “succourer” is translated in other places “rule” or “give direction” when used of men [see Titus] and Paul says Phebe did this to him, [you don’t suppose Phebe actually gave some helping leadership and direction to Paul the Apostle] that keeps me from being dogmatic about this being a principle for men and women for all time. I, too, am open to further understanding.
" Paul Burleson

I am hopeful that will not allow a narrow interpretation of women, that goes FAR beyond the BFM 2000 become dogma in our convention. We must not be afraid to let our voices be heard -- no matter who may see things differently.

In His Grace,



Anonymous said...

I like a comment Bowden McElroy made on his blog saying that all entity boards of trustees should take a "strict constructionist" view of the BF&M.

It seems that many are willing to follow a more "activist" path these days.

texasinafrica said...

Wade, do conservatives like you now understand what it was like for moderates in the SBC 20 years ago? If you're going to talk about Baptist history, surely you have to acknowledge the fact that the denomination was founded on the principle of freedom - freedom for churches to ordain whom they chose, freedom for individuals to read the Bible for themselves. That's why we can't accept the 2000 BFM - it replaces those freedoms with creedalism. When the historic Baptist principle of freedom was rejected, it opened the door for exactly what you're seeing now: an increasingly narrow interpretation of what is and isn't "Baptist."

Anonymous said...

To Brad Reynolds,

In the seminary you teach in there is a fine lady teaching in the music department. Dr. Patterson hired her. To teach sacred music in a seminary one must, by the nature of the subject matter, speak to theological issues relating to music. If one is to teach Hymnody and Hymnology and other disciplines of sacred music one must teach and refer to theology.

They must teach sound theology for worship music. If not we will have the music of the "Toronto Blessing" coursing through our worship centers in no time.

What is the difference between teaching the theology of sacred music and teaching the language of the sacred Text? Are not both important? Do not both deal with theology? I certainly hope so.

I do not want special music such as I heard in one church over twenty years: "HEAVEN IS JUST A SIN AWAY" by the Kendalls. Sound theology must be taught in the schools of music in all of our seminaries and we both know women teach sacred music in our seminaries.

Also, men are students in those classes where music is taught by women. Are those men lesser men than those that major in preaching?

Furthermore, it was Dr. Patterson that hired that fine lady who teaches sacred music at SEBTS. I was there when he hired Dr. Nanette Godwin as Professor of Church Music and she is excellent as a teacher of sacred music, as are her male counter parts Dr. John Davis and Dr. John Boozer, who are also professors of church music.

Language or music, what is the difference? There is no logic or Christian ethic in what happened to Sheri Klouda.

cb said...

Thanks, Texasinafrica, for acknowledging I am a conservative. I am :). I am also beginning to see that a lot of conservatives have been falsely maligned. I am trying to not make the same mistake others have made. I am committed to maintain a gracious spirit, unbreakable tenacity and a zeal to cooperate for missions and evangelism with every Baptist who names the name of Christ as Lord.

Anonymous said...


Why do you constantly refer to the BF&M 2000 as if it were the final word for Southern Baptists? Have you bought into that? Are you going to sit down and shut up if the guys in charge (and I do mean guys) change the BF&M so that it explicitly forbids women from teaching men in any circumstance? I hope not. I think Paige Patterson and his crowd win when we appeal to a document like the BF&M that he can control, rather than Scripture itself, which he cannot control. This is what they did to us when they added the phrase to make the BF&M 2000 an "instrument of doctrinal accountability." They moved the discussion from Scripture to pamphlet.

texasinafrica said...

Thanks, Wade. Many of us in the moderate world wondered if there would come a time in the SBC that after the moderates were purged, it would then become a question of who was conservative enough. I hope and pray that won't happen, but... said...


I am sympathetic with your concerns, but I know what I am doing.

Most Southern Baptists are ignorant of the BFM 2000, but trust, that if the convention voted for it, that it must be biblical and right.

My argument is much more serious right now. I cannot be distracted from my desire to effect change by people who couch these issues as people trying to 'undo' the BFM 2000.

I'm not.

I'm trying to prevent the dogma that is being demanded that goes WAY beyond the BFM 2000.

Wes Kenney said...


It seems to me that, by the way you ended the paragraph wherein you suggest that we may eventually have to apologize to women, you have placed yourself in a position where it would be impossible for you to support the BF&M’s prohibition on women serving as pastors.

You ended that paragraph by pointing out that “God tells us in His Word [that women] are equal to men.” While I certainly agree with that assertion in its context, placing it in this argument would remove the basis on which the aforementioned prohibition stands.

It seems to me you would be on much firmer ground if you maintained the argument that the prohibition should not extend to women teaching theology.

To suggest, as this post does to me, that we will eventually outgrow our insistence on a distinction between the roles of the sexes certainly feeds the perception that you are in fact "trying to 'undo' the BFM 2000." said...


Thanks for your comment, but you are incorrect.

I appreciate that you say, "It seems to me." Your spirit is not near as dogmatic as some of your friends.

My post had nothing to do with women pastors.


Anonymous said...

Wade~history should not only humble us but teach us. Example each year we baptist set aside a right to life week in January~but not once have I heard a sermon preached of how the Southern Baptist put their stamp of approval on abortion when the first federal laws were being written. SAD! History is not valuable unless we take our historical mistakes and teach and learn from them.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely spot on, Wade, again.

I've noticed that Mark Devine comments over at Jesus Creed, (see but I don't recall him ever commenting over here. There he said, as someone else noted later in the comment string, rather cavalierly:

Let me guess. Some smart person will be provoked to bring up the use of the Bible to defend slavery.

I don't know if he feels this blog isn't worthy of commenting on, or if the powers that be have cautioned him not to comment here, but I think it would sharpen the conversation if he would.

Alycelee said...

ABP now has a story on Sheri Klouda.
It posted last night. A little differnt slant of course than that of BP news.
Good morning all.

CB Scott said...


In all the time I have been reading Wade's posts and comments I have never read of him promoting the idea of Southern Baptists supporting women in the role of a local church pastor.

I have never had a conversation with Wade relating to that subject, but it is my opinion his position is like mine there, and if not, it is very close.

We are not talking about the position of pastor in the local church. In fact, we are not addressing a situation that happened in a local church. We are speaking to a serious breach of Christian conduct that happened in a SBC seminary. There is a difference.

Your ecclesiology is very close to that of my own and I feel you should be aware of the difference between the "way we do church" and the proper way to administrate higher education in one of our institutions.

As it stands now, it might be a problem for the daughters of Philip to share anything they had received from God on some of the "school grounds" of our institutions of "higher learning."


Mike said...

You quoted, "If you have an opinion on an issue that is not addressed by the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, but it is a different opinion than 'the powers that be,' you must not be a true, conservative Southern Baptist."

My anecdotal evidence and Barna's data would say my generation (early 30s)is saying, "Fine, enjoy your empty suit. Bye. Hello Bible church."

The comments on this post are illustrative. Parsing and picking apart Wade's words regarding women in leadership. Your churches are dying while you are arguing amongst other believers about tertiary issues. Geeze Louise.

God bless you Wade. From a guy hanging on by a thread (I just noted that I used the pronoun your instead of our above) like the church plant you referenced, I appreciate you fighting the good fight. I'm young, but already tired of this. Perhaps New Wine skins are in order?

Unknown said...

cb scott raises a very interesting point about women teaching sacred music to men in seminaries.

If we as Southern Baptists hold to the view of women in teaching and/or authority that Paige Patterson holds then where does the slippery slope end?

Would my wife not be allowed to speak in our home bible study because I am present?

irreverend fox said...

Great post Wade, you are a very talented writer.

I say again...there is room in our convention for “Patterson’s” view within a local church. I do not have a problem fellowshipping with, cooperating with or supporting a local church operating under that interpretive guideline regarding women in the local church, not at all.

I believe the REAL issue is not the role of women in the local church but rather is the role of women outside the local church.

Read that last statement over and over until it sinks in...because seminaries and agencies are NOT local churches nor are they even comparable.

Charlie Mac said...

Where will it end? First we adopt a BFM that tells "autonomous" local churches they can not have a female as pastor.
Has anyone else even noticed that "autonomous" and "the no-no" are in the same article?
Now we say that a well educated and learned woman can not teach men at the seminary level.
Is the next logical step to tell men that they should not read articles written by women? After all the female might be better educated and better informed and the male might just happen to learn something from a female and she might be "teaching" through the printed word.
Of course we have all known since 2000 that heaven forbids that a wife break the bonds of submission and speak up and teach her husband a thing or two.
Mac McFatter
Semmes, AL said...


You ask a very good question, "Where will it end?"

I am saying,

Right here. Right now.

But it is not easy, and people like you need to be active, committed, and outspoken -- while all the time maintaining a gracious spirit.

Bob Cleveland said...

There are a couple of verses that my pastor's used to warn us of the dangers of complacency in the church. Sure, outreach is important, but when I read scripture, the organization exists to edify and train believers for the work of service. Consider the following cautions:

Proverbs 6:10-11: A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest--and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man.

Amos 6:1: Woe to you who are complacent in Zion, and to you who feel secure on Mount Samaria, you notable men of the foremost nation, to whom the people of Israel come!

Consider how the church would be able to carry on any sort of work, if we choose to ignore those two thoughts.

"Fighting the good fight" includes insisting on righteousness in battles like this. So, Wade: carry on.

(yah .. like I needed to tell you THAT).

IMBLITS said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Scotte Hodel said...

Rev. Wade,

I've read your posts over the past few days with great interests and with gratitude. I have a daughter, now finishing her soph year in college, who laments being a part of a church culture that, in some dark moments, seems to effectively passes over women as people of worth and contribution. This is disturbing to us both.

- My mother, before she died, was a technical writer and then a software engineer at AT&T Bell Labs/Lucent. She was a such a strength that, after an eventful Hawaiian vacation, my brother got a T-shirt that said "Hurricane Iwa survived Mama."
- Many other women in my family and colleagues are professional, competent people. (And, frankly, the man who doesn't value his wife's opinion is in dangerous territory!)
- Edwards, in his booklet "Letters to a devastated Christian," writes that a common mark of authoritarian Chistian cults is their poor treatment of women.

- Acts speaks of a man who had 7 daughters who prophesied. Last I checked, prophesy involves speech and usually involves the church; I don't know how to reconcile God's gifting in this passage with certain other passages of scripture, but I do recognize that legalistic interpretations often lead to the authoritarian cult problems mentioned above.

Your defense of Dr. Klouda (and your discussion of the "authority over a man" passage have been encouraging to me.

Anonymous said...


I’m wondering (and being rhetorical here): when did either your church or mine or any other became “a Southern Baptist church” rather than “a God-established local group of believers, baptistic indeed in biblical persuasion and congregational in polity but choosing autonomously and voluntarily to affiliate with an association, state convention, and national convention of similar believers solely for the purposes of advancing evangelism and missions”?

Despite the very valid “You joined us—we didn’t join you” adage (the truth of which is held together by an extremely fine thread—-proved by dying churches and local Baptist associations and state Baptist conventions everyday), when was it that we “checked our brains at the door” and became subject to mandates handed down from “on high” by people adhering to (freely, but incorrectly) and enforcing the narrowest of biblical interpretations—-even if those individuals were elected by us to their present positions?

I don’t think the above ever happened, although many of us persist in behaving as if it did. Wade, continue to stand up as you are in the face of the things you are addressing—-because you are correct in saying, “a lot of conservatives have been falsely maligned” (your comment in a reply earlier today); the ones you refer to simply saw the same sort of things years before you, took a similar stand to say so among more oppositional ones than you face now, and either were forced away or walked away willingly (people will participate in an organization which is the best of several poor choices—-but only until one appearing better and offering more comes along; again, proved everyday by the death/decline of local churches—-it even could be the one you pastor today).

The trend can be reversed—-but only if caring ones still participating in the SBC continue to stand up. Doing so eventually may result in an organization that the biblical conservatives to which you refer—-who did not, and will not, and must not “check their brains at the door”—-choose autonomously to return to for further (and real) cooperation (in the meantime, they will remain criticized but focused on moving forward with the gospel—-but without the unnecessary weight of their criticizers).

David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

P.S. “The BFM 2000 forbids women from serving as pastors” (from your post of today)—-though there appears to be a biblical truth behind the statement made, lest someone read and actually come to believe this cited statement, permit me to point out that the BFM can neither forbid nor permit anything—-though it can describe the biblical persuasions of a majority of elected Southern Baptist messengers in a given year (and possibly, but not necessarily, the persuasions of the congregations of which they are members).

Kevin Bussey said...

Interesting analogies Wade. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your posts, Wade. I suppose we should be glad that nobody is making hiring decisions in the workplace based on 1 Timothy 2:9 yet, or even Mrs. Patterson would have to go. She's pictured wearing a gold bracelet in the Winter 2007 SWBTS alumni newsletter. Yes, I'm being silly, but I think we see where focusing on one verse out of context can lead. said...


Some keen insight.

By the way, your observation of the BFM 2000 is dead on. My communication in this post is lacking. This is no excuse, but when people falsely and repeatedly accuse you of not being a conservative, I have a tendency to defend the BFM 2000 too much --- because that is the club of choice for those who wish to keep attacking me.

Nevertheless, I agree that my allegience and conscience is to the Word of God, as is yours.


volfan007 said...


again, let me just say that your view of women teaching men goes against the way the church viewed this issue up until the women's lib movement. and, you are going against some very great bible scholars to hold to such a like gill, calvin, matthew henry, j. vernon mcgee, harry ironside, john mcarthur, a.t. robertson, and the list goes on and on. this passage is so clear it makes me wonder how there could even be any disagreement..unless someone is trying to make it fit our modern day, womens lib, radical feminist culture.

also, none of our six sbc seminaries have women teaching in the theology dept. none. are you saying that all the presidents of the sbc seminaries are wrong and you are right?

i would say that if you, or some of your followers, bring this up at the sbc in san antonio, you might find that the majority of the sbc does not agree with you, either. i for one will be voting against any resolution or motion that has to do with women teaching men being ok.

and, btw, this is a matter of staying true to scripture....its not politics. comparing this to slavery and some other issues is really not applicable. and, btw slavery is not wrong according to the bible. where are the verses that teach against it? i mean, to be really true to the bible...where does it teach against slavery? i agree with you that slavery should have been abolished, its not the best way for a society to be run, but where in the bible does it teach against it? now, the bible does teach that slaves ought to be treated right. right?

and, really, dont we always have slaves and masters around? in our capitalistic system, the slaves(employees) can pick thier own bosses(masters). and, slaves can become masters in our capitalistic society. but, couldnt you say that someone who controls your money and your livelihood, your financial well being, be looked upon as a master. if you dont think so, then why dont you just walk out of work today at 2 pm just because you want to take a nap. or, the next time you want to change your office to another part of the building...just do it....without asking anybodies permission. just do it. or, buy yourself a company car without consulting the boss. lets see what happens. i doubt that anyone would even try those things. the bossman wouldnt like it.


Tim Cook said...

You have said numerous times "this post is not about women pastors", and while I understand what you mean, I have to disagree. Taking the "IF" position you posted in dealing with the passage from Timothy, I don't think there is any really good scripture that spells out that women are banned from the pastorate. Here is why it matters: there is a trend to make every office in the church these days a "pastor". I, for instance, am the "worship and small groups pastor". I think my title is accurate, but I also think a woman could do my job. At times the title changes with the person holding the position: a youth "pastor", a man, is followed by a "youth director", a woman doing the same job. Where the rubber meets the road is compensation. If it is a "pastor" position, I think many churches tend to offer a better package. A "director" is often payed less and given less respect. I know what I am talking about: my mom has been the "music director" at a conservative church for nearly ten years in a part-time capacity. I fully believe that if she were a man, she would be full-time with benefits and called a "worship pastor". Granted, this isn't a SBC church we are talking about, but similar enough. I have heard many of the same criticisms from women in music and youth ministry positions at SBC churches. If women are not to be pastors, we need to be clear about what a "pastor" is at the very least, or someday soon we may have removed women from every effective ministry postition by tossing the word "pastor" around with no clear meaning.

In Christ,
Tim Cook

Anonymous said...

Question for Volfan0007/David,
Mrs. Criswell taught men in a Sunday School class for years at FBC Dallas. Dr. Criswell said that she taught under his authority. Was the late Dr. Criswell a liberal for allowing this to go on according to the passage in I Tim.?
Question for Wade,
Was Ben Cole a student at SEBTS when PP was President and didn't the two have a good relationship? What caused the relationship to "sour" or "go south"? If you can't answer the question, perhaps Ben Cole can/will shed some light on it - it would be interesting to know.

volfan007 said...


in all fairness, why dont you ask all the other commenters in here to say who they are before allowing them to post?
who is mo scratch? texasinafrica? and all the other anonymous people?


volfan007 said...

sadly, many times, even good, conservative men will go along with society sometimes instead of standing out.

also, dont yall think that its kind of mean and vindicative for someone to report swtbs to the accreditation people? is this very Christlike? is this really something that a christian ought to do?

i mean, this sounds a lot like revenge and anger and meaness to me. it'd be like a man being mad at his neighbor for doing something that he didnt like. and, the man reporting that neighbor to the dept. of human services.....telling them that the man didnt treat his children right...that he was neglecting them. and then, the dept. of human services put that neighbor thru hell on earth making him prove that he wasnt mean to his children. that would be mean and cruel and over the top revenge.

those who would report swtbs to accreditation agencies sound like that man.....revenge, spite, meaness, unchristlike attitude.


Anonymous said...

Don't turn your back on the abuses of power that took place in the SBC between 1979 and 1995. A lot of people were pushed out of the SBC by being labelled as "liberals" when the fact of the matter is that there were very, very few genuine liberals in the SBC, and none of them were in a position of power to take the SBC away from its conservative roots. Most of those people who were labelled "moderates" didn't have any real theological differences with the conservative resurgence. The basic difference was that they were more willing to have wider parameters of cooperation in the SBC. Mainly, they settled for a Biblical definition of divine inspiration, authority and sufficiency of scripture rather than choosing to use the terms "inerrant" and "infallible" (which the Bible writers themselves do not use) and they didn't object to allowing churches with women in leadership the privilege of cooperation, though most of them have yet to call women to the pastorate.

In fact the only difference I see between the "moderates" of the 80's and 90's, and the Memphis Declatation Bloggers of the 21st century is that the latter group is focusing on private prayer language and Calvinism as issues to broaden the parameters of cooperation. The ultimate goal of both groups is to extend the ministry and missions cooperation of the SBC to Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ who hold different views on non-essential doctrine.

I'm 49 years old, with almost 30 years of experience in the ministry, and I have yet to meet a Baptist, in either the "moderate" group or the "blogger" group who falls outside what Southern Baptists would consider to be essential doctrine.

Anonymous said...

Brother Wade,

Thanks for the variety of thoughts. I've had to examine a great deal of my own thinking while following your entries. I was so impressed with your exegsis of 1 Timothy that I shamelessly added it to my own blog.

After reading the comments by Brothers Troublefield and Hodel, I'm left with a couple of implications that I can't really reconcile. (No rhetorical trap here, it's just the first time I've ever considered it.)

If Paul is only restricting the office of local church pastor to men, does that mean for us that women are able to serve in every other capacity? Could women serve as an associational missionary, head of a state convention, tenured professor, seminary president or even be elected sbc president in San Antonio? The possibilities for real leadership roles for women seems like a good thing. Maybe restricting one role doesn't have to mean a glass ceiling on every other role?

I also think Brother Cook is on to something important in the way the term "pastor" gets thrown around.

Thanks for spurring such good thoughts.


Anonymous said...

On this same subject, has anyone read Ben Cole's recent post claiming a breach of accredidation has occured at SWBTS. The Klouda issue was truly unfortunate, but does nayone else consider this extreme? Why put the entire campus, students, and future educational system in jeopardy over one faculty member?

Writer said...


You said, "We must not be afraid to let our voices be heard -- no matter who may see things differently." I couldn't agree with you more. It would be nice to let voices be heard on your blog who may see things differently without getting blasted. Admittedly, I'm not talking about you so much as I am many who support you.

As usual, there are many things in your post I agree with and some I do not. Thanks for the opportunity to disagree agreeably. :)

BTW, I'm back on my own blog again. It's My reasons for coming back are noted there.



Anonymous said...

Anonymous -

You ask a good question. Why would the President of one of our seminaries put the entire campus, students, and future educational system in jeopardy by denying a faculty member the opportunity to do the job for which she was hired?

Debbie Kaufman said...

Volfan, David: Do something proactive to right an injustice is anything but anger or meanness and it's certainly not based on false allegations. It's helping those who have been served injustice and had no power to help themselves. That's what we as Christians are to do. Help our brothers and sisters. Stand up for wrong.

I would personally disagree with the commentaries you have mentioned concerning this passage. I just can't see it reconciling with all the other passages in the OT and the NT that show women teaching, even judging nations. Many a huge part of Christ's ministry and telling what Christ told them to men. Scripture interprets scripture and the Bible cannot contradict itself. Ever.

Debbie Kaufman said...

Volfan: Let me reword so that my post makes sense. I was talking to my son and typing at the same time. Something I should never do. :)

Volfan, David: To do something proactive to right an injustice is anything but anger or meanness and it's certainly not based on false allegations. It's helping those who have been served injustice and had no power to help themselves. That's what we as Christians are to do. Help our brothers and sisters. Stand up for wrong.

I would personally disagree with the commentaries you have mentioned concerning this passage. I just can't see it reconciling with all the other passages in the OT and the NT that show women teaching men, even judging nations both men and women.Many were a huge part of Christ's ministry and telling what Christ told them to men(the disciples). Scripture interprets scripture and the Bible cannot contradict itself. Ever. said...


If people comment on my blog repeatedly and begin to cross the line of propriety in terms of demeanor or tone, I will ask that they make themselves known.

That is consistent with my practice in the past.

John Jax said...

Volfan - Wade knows who I am. I have emailed him previously and he has much information about me. In any event, slaves were treated as property and were bought and sold. Trying to make the analogy to employment today is a scary analogy that is not even close. Your post seems to be saying that if slavery were still practiced by PP based on the bible, you would applaud him for his convictions. I will assume I am totally misunderstanding your post. That kind of logic is like a man divorcing his wife and leaving his children because he was being called to missions and they did not want to go. The Bible does not call a man to do that no matter what the great commission says. Just as a prisoner who accepts Christ does not get "set free", neither did Christ come to "free the slaves." Are you implying that equal rights for minorities was also done as a response to a liberal society. Or do you feel that way just about woman? said...


Welcome back. A tip of the hat to your acknowledgement that I attempt to dialogue with civility and grace. It means much more coming from someone who often disagrees with me on the issues. said...


Mo Scratch is right.

He emailed me, gave me his home address and church and even invited me to stay in his home.

And this from a person who has disagreed with me on several issues.

I really admire men like Mo Scratch and would encourage others to imitate his example.

Alycelee said...

Wade, I emailed you about a story coming out in our paper. Did you get it?

Wes Kenney said...


I know that you occasionally visit William, David and the gang over at the forums on, but I didn't know if you had seen this comment yet or not, and I wondered if you might respond to it, as it seems to be an example of the danger I was trying to point out in my earlier comment. Here's the quote:

This may be Wade going for the jugular, as it shows it self a decade after the takeover. He has found a new vein and it is bulging.

His History on Women could be the undoing of BFM 2000 said...


I've been conducting a funeral and just now returned your email.

Thanks for the help.

By the way, nice new self portrait!

wade said...


Thanks for the heads up about the comment.

Obviously, I would disagree with the author, but I've discovered that if I were to try to correct every incorrect perception that is out there, I would drive myself crazy.

I'll just keep plugging along doing what I'm doing and Lord willing, all of us will come to the place where we accept each other and choose to work with each other for the cause of Christ and the kingdom.


volfan007 said...

mo scratch,

where in the bible does it teach that slavery is sinful? that it shouldnt be done?

in fact, what you see is paul telling philemon to not punish onesimus and treat him good. philemon was the master. onesimus was the slave.

in other letters of paul, you see paul giving instructions to masters to treat thier slaves right, and for the slaves to work hard for thier masters.

so, really, the bible neither condones slavery, nor does it condemn it. it was just a fact of life....just as we have the employer and employee system here in the u.s.

i agree with you. slavery needed to end. it was not a great system. i am glad it's gone. but, you cant say that the bible condemned it.

btw, i am not even talking about black and white. i am talking about slaves in response to your statement. there were many races that were slaves in the wasnt just black folks in the south.

and yes, of course, the bible teaches that all people are valuable to God...equal in value. blacks, whites, chinese, hillbillies, women, every one. but, there are still roles that the sexes are to play in the design of God.....different roles.


Mike said...

David Cox resigned last night at FBC, Daytona Beach. Sad, very sad.

Mike said...

Link to article about First, Daytona Beach.

volfan007 said...


i noticed that you didnt respond to my comment to you when i said this....

"again, let me just say that your view of women teaching men goes against the way the church viewed this issue up until the women's lib movement. and, you are going against some very great bible scholars to hold to such a like gill, calvin, matthew henry, j. vernon mcgee, harry ironside, john mcarthur, a.t. robertson, and the list goes on and on. this passage is so clear it makes me wonder how there could even be any disagreement..unless someone is trying to make it fit our modern day, womens lib, radical feminist culture.

also, none of our six sbc seminaries have women teaching in the theology dept. none. are you saying that all the presidents of the sbc seminaries are wrong and you are right?"

i was just wondering how you respond to this?


Tim Cook said...

If slavery was a "fact of life" that society had to live with, but was better off going the way of the dinosaur, why aren't women's roles the same way? Will someone in the future say that "restricting women's teaching roles was just a fact of life in the 20th and early 21st century that they had to livve with...but I am glad it is in the past." Some passages on slavery actually seem, to me, to have remarkable parallels with the passages on women's roles. Why is one worth letting go, and another worth fighting over? Oh, wait, we already fought over slavery. with guns.

The SBC has made some collosal mistakes in the past, like supporting slavery. I just don't want to see "discrimination against women" added to the list for future generation to reflect upon.

In Christ,
Tim Cook said...


There are multiple conservative scholars who hold to different views of I Timothy 2 than you. For instance, you can go to CBE and get the articles by Dr. Gordan Fee, and read for yourself how a conservative acamedician exegetes the text differently than you.

Our seminaries have all had women teach in their Schools of Theology --- all of them.

Their policy handbooks do not forbid it. Their bylaws do not forbid it. The SBC does not forbid it. The Bible does not forbid it . Jesus does not forbid it. God does not forbid it.

Volfann forbids it :)



volfan007 said...


are any women teaching in the theology dept. now? i know that they used to back in the liberal days, but i am talking about now.

God does forbid it. Jesus does forbid it. the bible does forbid it. thus, i stand with them.


Anonymous said...

Dr. Fee also is a voice of support for the TNIV translation, a translation that tries to force the Biblical text to say what it does not. Perhaps folks should read commentaries by Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, Ligon Duncan, or Rebecca Jones. (Reading a commentary by a woman is not the same a sitting under the authority of a female theology teacher. Reading is a non-directive activity.)
I am a Southern Baptist woman, and I do not feel that the SBC inhibits me from serving God and others in bibically-appropriate ways. God gives equal worth to men and women, but He does prescribe different roles. I am woman who has chosen to be a Southern Baptist.

Anonymous said...

It might be wise to do some more research on your position concerning women teaching where men are present.
It is true that Betty Criswell taught a class in the auditorium where men were present. W.A.'s position was that she did it under his authority.
Also, if someone will do a further investigation, they will discover that Mrs. Homer Lindsey and Mrs. Jerry Vines also taught a new member's class. I would think in a new members class, MEN would probably be present. Perhaps someone in the Jacksonville area who is knowledge can shed further light on this issue. I do recall both of these dear men of God saying that "they (meaning their wives)taught under the authority of Dr. Lindsey and Dr. Vines. They do not operate under their own authority. So when matters of of public doctrine are taught, the Scripture says that the women are not to teach nor to exercise authority over the men." It seems according to their theology that a woman can teach with men present in a Sunday School class because it is under the authority of the pastor.
Are W.A. Criswell, Homer Lindsey, and Jerry Vines, liberal? No! By no means!
P.S. Was Sherri Klouda teaching men in the Hebrew class? Yes! If you follow the same "line of thinking" Klouda was teaching under the authority of PP, which many think are allowed under Holy Scripture.

Debbie Kaufman said...

anonymous said:"(Reading a commentary by a woman is not the same a sitting under the authority of a female theology teacher. Reading is a non-directive activity.)"

You are kidding right? Also do you have documentation concerning the information you gave on Dr. Fee? Who are all these anonymous people?

Anonymous said...

Wasn't Patterson a member of FBC Dallas when Betty Criswell was teaching all those men in the auditorium class? Why did he not speak out then? Why wait 30 years? Did his own personal views change over the years?

Anonymous said...

Debbie: No, I am not kidding. You can read about sponsors of TNIV by going to

As for reading being a non-directive activity, that's not a new idea. Reading, by its very nature, is an attempt to gain information. I do not sit under the authority of the author as I read any book - theology or otherwise. (We all recognize that the Bible alone is directive, so need for anyone to say "well, what about reading the Bible?")

Tim Cook said...

Dr. Fee does support the TNIV, and while I don't particularly like it, it is not as heretical as some people tend to think. In Ancient Greek, sometimes the plural male article was used to refer to group ideas that were clearly male and female, simlilar to the way we would use the word "mankind". All the translators of the TNIV tried to do was spell those situations out more clearly. Now, some may disagree about which situations reffered to both men and women and which didn't, but...well, Gordon Fee is an accomplished Greek scholar, and I would not want to disagree with his translation choices. It is not a whole lot worsee than the NIV (which I also don't like), but is a good recommendation for new believers. For deeper study, I would find an NASB, but that's just me.

In Christ,
Tim Cook

Tim Cook said...

In any case, Dr. Fee has very high respect for the scriptures. Check out his book "Reading the Bible for All It's Worth" if you doubt me. I would be careful challenging this man on theology, that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cole has now sent a letter to ATS, big surprise. Maybe this won't be a matter for the convention. Perhaps if Mr. Cole continues he will be able to get SWBTS placed on probation or maybe if we are really lucky they can lose their accredidation.

Mr. Cole seems like an incredibly intelligent man and a capable leader. I am a young seminarian who has silently agreed with much of what he has to say. His unpopular stand against resoulution #5 and his call for greater accountability among the entities has been inspiring. However, I wish in this case the convention was aloud to here the case before the accrediting agencies were called. I hope that Mr. Cole's desire to rid the convention of Paige Patterson doesn't destroy him. Mr. Cole could be a valuable voice in the coming years.

Alycelee said...

Looks like the link to the "fundamentalist" essay was deleted. I read it and yes it was over the top.
While saying that, I have to admit I would have liked Volfan to read it. BTW, did you David? And if so what did you think?

Debbie Kaufman said...

Anonymous: I need to clarify. My comment "Are you kidding" was directed to this statement which you made. (Reading a commentary by a woman is not the same a sitting under the authority of a female theology teacher. Reading is a non-directive activity.)

I am not familiar with the TNIV so I cannot comment. However it seems that you made an accusation and I was asking for proof. I have read Dr. Fee and see nothing heretical. I see him as having a very deep respect for scripture. I hope this makes my post clearer and my apologies for the confusion.

irreverend fox said...

Is anyone here prepaired to call The Assemblies of God a liberal denomination?

They have ordained women for about 100 years.

Anonymous said...


Mr. Cole's voice might be valuable in the coming years, but it will not be raised to address denominational issues indefinitely.

The time of my departure, however, is not yet at hand.

Here's hoping I fight a good fight.


Anonymous said...

I'm not making any accusation or questioning Dr. Fee's scholarship. He is to be respected for his theological work.
My concern is simply that one must understand the perspective from which an author comes. Dr. Fee approaches the gender issue from one perspective so it would be helpful for those studying the issue to read works from authors who come from a different perspective (Ware, Duncan, etc.)
I meant for the following comment to address your "are you kidding" remark:
"As for reading being a non-directive activity, that's not a new idea. Reading, by its very nature, is an attempt to gain information. I do not sit under the authority of the author as I read any book - theology or otherwise. (We all recognize that the Bible alone is directive, so no need for anyone to say "well, what about reading the Bible?")"
Commenting does not allow for erudite, eloquent, or clear communication sometimes! :) I'm sorry for not being clear!

Anonymous said...

Debbie, the current issue of the journal published by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would be helpful in addressing this non-directive/reading question. The editorial explains the issue far better than I could ever hope to.

foxofbama said...

Wade, you are getting play at with this one.
I hope you can tackle the differential nuances of Mohler and Tim George on One Hand, and Randall Balmer and David Gushee on the other as it plays politically, next.
To that end the PBS Religion and Ethics PBS review of McDermott's AFterthis may take your spiritual pilgrimage to a sublime place.
You and Gushee need to become well acquainted, prayer partners as it were for whatever deepwater may be possible for wherever your wing of Baptistness is going.
I taunt a good bit, and ridicule for some higher good I am not always sure what is, but this one is from the heart.
Stephen Fox

foxofbama said...

Abortion was the operative word I left out in the last comments. The faultline between the Gushee and Balmer and their lessers, Mohler and George on abortion as it plays politically in a shell game that the light is now being spotlighted.
By All means do read Balmer's Thy Kingdom Come, before ID Union in Jackson

Anonymous said...

I'm so sorry to hear about David @ FBCD. That is tragic. Maybe we could all support one another instead of tearing down fellow believers esp. pastors.

Thanks Wade for talking issues & not personalities.

Anonymous said...


That last anony was Kevin Bussey. I haven't learned how to get my blogger profile to work on my Treo.

davidinflorida said...

Pastor Wade,

Your blog has been a good read for the last few days, as usual, with alot of thought provoking comments.

In order for Scriptural truth not to turn into extremism or fanaticism, it must be balanced with other Scriptural truth. As we see, this is not always the case.

Example 1- 1 Tim 2:8 " I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." Do any of the staff at SWBTS pray without lifting their hands? If they do then the are clearly going against the written word. They should step down.

Example 2- Phip 3:2 " Beware of dogs "
Do any of the staff at SWBTS own a dog? If so, they are clearly putting themselves near something that the Bible says to beware of? They should be asked to resign.

What say you ?

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...

Tim Cook said:
"Dr. Fee does support the TNIV, and while I don't particularly like it, it is not as heretical as some people tend to think."

It is horrible - it should be rejected in every way.

Anonymous said...

Volfan, now instead of "clear teaching of the bible" your childish repetitive phrase is becoming women's lib. That was what fearful men screamed in the 70s. A number of people have pointed to facts that are contrary to that assertion of yours, yet you persist in saying it as though if you say it enough it would magically become true. As Wade said, Volfan says it. And, from what I've read of your writing you say it in a parroting way because a lot of other men you admire say it, but that doesn't mean that you and all those men you want to carp about are inerrant. The whole point of this post is that men just like the ones you model yourself after had interpretations historically that today are not held. In most of those instances the historically held interpretation was a bad one. It doesn't mean that the current one is the right one; but it does demonstrate that we are all learning, growing, and maturing in our understanding of a God whose ways are higher than our own.

Anonymous said...

"If you have an opinion on an issue that is not addressed by the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, but it is a different opinion than 'the powers that be,' you must not be a true, conservative Southern Baptist."

The current battle is not a battle for the bible, but one of identity. The question people are asking is what does it mean to be a "real Southern Baptist"? What I see happening is that some Trustees/leaders are unwilling to allow the Messengers to speak for themselves and are declaring through their policy changes what a "real Southern Baptist" looks like.

The current struggle is not to "enlarge the tent" or even to prevent the "narrowing of the boundaries of cooperation". The real issue is not should women usurp authority over men. The current struggle is to prevent a few from usurping the authority of the convention.

Debbie Kaufman said...

This seems to have been passed right by. This is something Wade brought up that seems to be completely by passed by. "Our seminaries have all had women teach in their Schools of Theology --- all of them.

Their policy handbooks do not forbid it. Their bylaws do not forbid it. The SBC does not forbid it. The Bible does not forbid it . Jesus does not forbid it. God does not forbid it."

I don't see how anyone can argue against this statement.

Debbie Kaufman said...

I like Bowden's statement. I believe it to be right on target.

Alycelee said...

I haven't read the TNIV nor do I plan to buy one as I just received a new ESV for Christmas.
However the TNIV has a host of theologians and pastors endorsing it, non of which are heretics :)

Charles R said...

Earlier today, texasinafrica wrote,

"Many of us in the moderate world wondered if there would come a time in the SBC that after the moderates were purged, it would then become a question of who was conservative enough."

A few "hellbound" moderates were purged and took the route some "heavenbound" conservative PPL folks are taking now -- out of the SBC. Many of us "hellbound" moderates stuck around and dutifully donned the gag officially distributed via Sunday School Board channels.

I and many, many of sisters and brothers were sneered away from the "cool kids table" 20 years ago because we believe a password other than "Jesus is Lord" is too narrow. Yet we continue to support SBC work with our sweat, prayers and treasure. (If a signed creed were required with every check sent to the SBC, the SBC would be hurting for money!)

If the effort to stem the tide of continued narrowing of boundries fails, I hope you'll discover just as I have that the "cool kids table" really isn't as cool as it seems. The reality is that 90% of all that is accomplished for God's kingdom takes place IN SPITE of the cool kids, not because of them.

It is a shame that the cool kids table appears to be expanding the "he-man woman haters club" chapter. That club is not new. Just ask Molly Marshall-Green. Just ask the hundreds and hundreds of women who were raised in the SBC who are now serving God in other denominations in leadership of all kinds, including the pastorate.

I would ask you and all Grace and Truth readers to go to and browse the hundreds of blogs of deeply committed, Christ loving women who do Great Commission work around the world -- again, IN SPITE of the cool kids, not because of them. You see, the gag that the cool kids hand out only works at the cool kids table.

Anonymous said...

Here's a quote from someone who definitely is no longer considered to be at the cool kids' table, but I think it very appropos to this discussion:

[T]he trouble doesn't end for either liberals or conservatives. To the degree they've defined themselves (a) in reaction to modern issues and (b) in polarization to one another, and to the degree they do not wake up and engage with ... emerging ... issues and challenges, they both become relics - stuck in the past rather than moving into the future. To the degree they preoccupy themselves with the question of who's right, to the exclusion of considering whether they are truly good (as in "bearing good fruit"), they're destined to fade, wither, fail. To the degree that they have sold their spiritual birthright for a political ideology, they must repent; neither left nor right leads to the higher kingdom.

Many have also noted that conservatives are all too often identified by what they are against rather than what they are for. That is clearly not an unfair criticism.

We need to be pointing the world to Jesus. This same uncool kid notes that we may not build cathedrals of stone and glass as in the Middle Ages; instead, we build cathedrals of proposition, argument, doctrine. We are trading in inspiration and revelation for reason, unwittingly. Where is the Spirit in all of this?

Anyway, I have been thinking many of these things, but anothers' words expressed it so well, i thought I would share them here.

volfan007 said...


let me get this straight. i am not saying that everyone who lets women teach men the bible in your church, seminary, etc. are liberal. i have not said that. there have been good men who believed as dr. criswell did. i think that dr. criswell was wrong on that one. i loved dr. criswell. i admired dr. criswell. i thank God for what dr. criswell led our sbc to do....the conservative resurgence. but, many good men have yielded to the culture in some ways from time to time. and, it was not was not the best. Gods best is for men and women to play the roles that God has set up.

the last two churches that i have gone to had women teaching men the bible in an authoritative, public setting. i didnt look upon those churches as liberal. i didnt go on a vendetta to lambast those women and throw them out of those teaching positions. i simply taught the bible to the church, and at both churches, the women and the rest beleived the bible and quit teaching those classes where men were present.

these ladies were Godly,humble women who wanted to please the Lord....who wanted to obey the bible. they didnt throw a fit and demand thier rights. these Godly women said that the only reason they were doing it to begin with was because the men wouldnt do it. in fact, these ladies asked me to let the men have it about taking on thier responsibility in this matter. thank God for humble people who love the Lord and want to please Him. these ladies are wonderful people that i love in the Lord very much.


volfan007 said...


was not molly marshall green the woman who taught theology at southern back in the "day" who was a universalist? who called God...our mother? who was for women pastors?

could you also share with us her view on abortion? on hell?


Alycelee said...

Thank you Bryan, so good.
I was just sitting reading over and over Charles post.
I wasn't sure if I should respond. My emotional response Charles, is that I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you felt unaccepted. I'm not questioning when I say "felt" that is wasn't true, but I can hear in your post that perhaps you are not reconciled or healed at what has happened?
As I read I thought, Volfan (David) and Tim think I'm extremely liberal. I bet-because I seldom agree with either of them. I bet if you and I sat down to talk, you would think I'm very to the (right) of you.
The difference is (in my way of thinking) it doesn't matter to me. If you say, if David and Tim say-Jesus is Lord, then you are all my brothers.
And we can have unity in that. If we submit ourselves to the Father, not in what we think is right, or "our rights" but to the Father we can have unity.
I don't want anyone to leave. But I don't want anyone to force or manipulate anyone to leave either.
Jesus came to reconcile and we are called to reconcile also. We need to start here. If we can't reconcile within the church, how can we with the world?

GeneMBridges said...

This is amusing. We're told that Calvinism leads to Presbyterianism, and we're told that our ecclesiology must not aver in that direction. Fair enough. I actually disagree with the first proposition for historic reasons but accept the second for exegetical reasons.

But the problem here with their assuming that Dr. Klouda is an elder in the local church is that (a) she is not, to my knowledge ordained, and (b) if no, nobody is bound to recognize her ordination. So the problem isn't merely being an "elder" in a local church, which I might add is prohibited by the BFM and Scripture. It's just "anything that can be construed as authoritative." Never mind they took her money, and assuming she's an SBC student, CP money to pay for her degree, we have to wonder why they bothered granting it when they didn't believe she should use it. Likewise, true, she could teach at a college or university, even a secular one, but in that case, we have to ask how this article of the BFM applies to the seminary but not the secular university. If she isn't supposed to teach men, then she's not supposed to teach men, right?

However, the really funny problem here is that it's Presbyterian/Dutch Reformed/Reformed polity that makes "Doctor of the Church" a special office in the NT church with "authority" attached to it. Historically, that office belongs not to the local church or the association or presbytery, but the academy. The Protestant Orthodox were very tied to their academies, ergo the separate office. So, in order to assert that she has "authority" in the NT sense, you have to run to non-Baptist polity to get there. Delicious!

E. Goodman said...

Thanks for this post. We have some faithful, capable, and gifted women in strategy and team leadership positions here in Western Europe, but many of us expect that to be challenged soon by denominational leaders back home.

I wonder if it bothers anyone our annual Christmas offering is named for a woman missionary?

Charles R said...

David (volfann),

For a man with such strong convictions and such desire to express them, it's a shame you haven't spent the time or energy to create a blog to expand discussion.

Email me if you'd like to talk about Dr. Marshall-Green. I'd rather not clog Wade's comment section with stuff that's likely to go off-point.

I was going to email you a response but your profile doesn't have an email address. My profile is wide open.

Charles R said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Hello Wade from the Southern Baptist Geneva,
I think these two posts are germaine!
Al Mohler...

and Mark Dever....
"Well then" you might say "why don't you leave this issue of complementarianism at the level of baptism or church polity? Surely you cooperate with those who disagree with you on such matters." Because, though I could be wrong, it is my best and most sober judgment that this position is effectively an undermining of--a breach in--the authority of Scripture(Mark Dever)
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

OK, this is country baptist preacher. I cannot get on my own blog so this is an anonymous post.

I see where slavery is ok.

I see where we are again slandering Molly Marshall Green as if that is a way to get points.

Also, I would like to know if you have ever read ANY of Dr Marshall's complete works.

If so, show the proof that she is a universalist. You can't, I have read the whole thing for myself, not selected parts for political gain.

If you are repeating 2nd hand news then it is gossip and a sin. 1Corr 6 has something to say about that.

Molly did teach a class on "LET US make them in OUR image". When God made a MALE and a FEMALE "in our image" did he mean gender or do we also explain that away? and yes, some do say Mother God. (which I hate AND DISAGREE WITH) but that does not give us the right to slander. I believe that Jesus said "our Father" and that settles it for me

Are you saying she is not a true Christian or that she is not up to your standards of "Good" as a Christian? Are you judging her salvation or slandering her beliefs.

If slavery is ok, even by the Bible, I have some friends who are not SBC missionaries and they are in a country with slaves and where you can get your head cut off for just about anything, especially preaching Jesus. How about this person who defends slavery go there to do the Lord's work,



You keep using John Calvins name for your arguments. Didn't he use his power to have people killed who disagree with his theology?

Oh, we really need those types for our leaders and examples.


One of the biggest problems Christianity faces is that the left and the right use slander, gossip and attacks and it is ruining our credibily. AS PROOF...

In the "Nehemiah Project" one of their slogans is "America is the only continent with NO CHURCH GROWTH." DUH! This type of slander and attacks is the reason. We are loosing the votes of people in the pews and the polls. Look at the last national election. America just voted OUT THE CONSERVATIVES.

If we continue to believe slavery is OK and continue to slander each other, we will become nothing.

Also, one of the reasons that ladies like DOCTOR KLOUDA and DR GREEN get fired is because the leaders cannot win a debate with these brilliant women. If you don't believe me, look who turns to backstabbing and slander instead of a clear, controlled discussion/debate.

If you would like to know the real women behind these talks, Call them up and get first hand knowledge. Read their stuff, Have a conversation with them. Then you have the Biblical right to your opinion based on facts and not slanderous opinions based on snd 3rd 4th 5th hand news.

I know Dr Patterson and I like him. On this thing I beileve he did not handle it right. If he calls or writes me, we will talk and we will disagree. But if at another time we can work together to spread the Gospel then we will.

By the way, didn't John Calvin also teach that newborns that die go to hell?

oh yeah, a great example of
Christ and a great leadership example.

living to learn

fearing God


God is a Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Molly Marshall-Green's dissertation can be found in the library at Southern Seminary. If I remember correctly she is not a universalist she is an inclusivist. She was not forced because she was a women it was because of some of her other unorthodox views. Southern Seminary at the time also had founding members of the Jesus Seminar on the faculty. Obviously a great change has taken place at Southern. This situation with Dr. Klouda is not the same as Dr. Marshall-Green. By all accounts Dr. Klouda is a Bible believing conservative. Dr. Marshall-Green would not claim those things for herself. Comparisons of the two situations are not helpful to the discussion

Stephen Pruett said...

David, I can't believe you have only been challenged in a minor way with regard to you statement that the Bible does not prohibit slavery. It does specifically prohibit slave trading (1Timothy 1:10). It would seem difficult to justify owning slaves if selling them was prohibited. There is also the response of Jesus to the question what is the greatest commandment. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think slavery fits very well in the category of loving others as we love ourselves. My guess is that Jesus did not specifically teach against slavery because he knew that the focus of those who heard about this would be political, not spiritual. As someone who can find absolute clarity in 1Tim. 2:12, even though you interpret several other similar passages figuratively instead of literally, it is amazing to me that you cannot discern the ramifications of the great commandment with clarity.
With regard to your list of scholars who agree with you about 1Tim 2:12, try looking up "Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation by W. Ward Gasque and William LaSor. I borrowed it from the library of a very conservative retired pastor friend of mine. Chapter 16 is titled "The Role of Women in the Church and Home: An Evangelical Testcase in Hermeneutics" by Robert K. Johnston. Dr. Johnston's conclusions are very similar to mine. There are elements in the relevant texts, context, and cultural background that could be used to support either position and most of the major arguments on both sides are heavily dependent on assumptions. I believe this chapter is the most objective and thorough treatment of the subject I have seen. In addition, I have contacted Dr. Douglas Moo who wrote the chapter most relevant to this issue in "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood". He told me he is still a complementarian, but not as nearly strong about it as he was when he wrote the chapter and that he has concluded the issue is not as important as he once thought. If you cannot find this chapter, try this web site ( I do not know much about intervarsity, but the author of the article states that he has a high view of the Bible and rejected much of what he read on 1 Timothy 2:12, because it was written by people who seemed to take a very much lower view of the Bible. In any case, he actually answers many of the questions I have addressed to you, but only by concluding that 1Tim. 2:12 does not prohibit women from teaching men correctly. If you do not agree with him, I would really like to see your point by point refutation of his position!

Charles R said...

Does anyone else find it interesting and amusing that the Judeizers(sp) in the NT believed that if you had too much external anatomy (uncircumsized) you were unfit for some types of service. Now we're struggling back and forth about those who have too little external anatomy being unfit for some types of service.

Ladies and gentlemen, does God really, really put so much stock in what He put on the outside of the body?? I thought that was just a problem for the oversexed conscious American!


Anonymous said...

Hello from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Mr Pruett,
Inter-Varsity is well known for its egalitarian stand....must be committed to egalitarian stands to serve in missions!
At least I admire their clarity. I know not my direction!
Why not do that with the SBC.
Soli Deo Gloria
Robert i Masters

Anonymous said...

Mr Pruett,
Here is a relevant link!
re: Inter-Varsity
SDG-Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

One Little Man:

I ramble considerably in actual personal conversation, too--thanks for reading (maybe?) the entire comment above despite its somewhat confusing parenthetical statements!

Tonight, TV newscasts report that Muslims actually are warring with other Muslims due, apparently, to their religious differences. I think that I understand theologically why this occurs (and must occur) among them, but--for the life of me--I cannot understand why it has continued to happen among SBC'ers since 1979. Do we NOT have, as we have proclaimed to the world, the indwelling Christ empowering us to behave otherwise? Our disagreements are too easily dismissed, and no wonder so few in the U.S. want what we profess to have. So sad.

David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

Anonymous said...

Regarding "Father" God,
Please remember that God is GREATER than any human and any human words to describe him fall short. So remember that "father" is as close an approximation to God as we can understand. not the other way around.
Michael (NOT Mike)

PS. could someone please identify the characteristics of a Father that apply to God. (there could be some crossover from the mother role)
*just let your tail feathers relax and consider it*

Anonymous said...

Regarding being humble, which I take Wade to mean acknowledging that one has possibly erred in one's interpretation of God's Word, I like the following writing by Andrew Sullivan:

"If God really is God, then God must, by definition, surpass our human understanding. Not entirely. We have Scripture; we have reason; we have religious authority; we have our own spiritual experiences of the divine. But there is still something we will never grasp, something we can never know - because God is beyond our human categories. And if God is beyond our categories, then God cannot be captured for certain. We cannot know with the kind of surety that allows us to proclaim truth with a capital T. There will always be something that eludes us. If there weren't, it would not be God."

Tim Batchelor said...


I asked this question in the previous post and you didn't answer so I'll ask again in a different way. You state that you are trying to right a wrong. In what way is what you have done so far worked to right this wrong? At what point will you know that you have done enough to right the wrong? or maybe a better way to ask it would be, "When will you know that the wrong has been righted?" What does Dr. Patterson have to do to satisfy your need for vindication?

Alycelee said...

I don't think Wade is here and I'm certainly not his spokesman (person) But he has I believe already answered that question. (per last post).. Give Sheri Klouda her job back in this instance.
However, your last sentence "his vindication?" I don't think Wade is concerned about vindicating himself.
Are you suggesting he should stop Tim?

Anonymous said...

Robert Masters,

With all due respect, you're creeping me out with that SBC Geneva thing. Do you really require couples to give their children biblical names under penalty of inprisonment? Do you excommunicate people for dancing? said...


Thank you for your comment. You said it better than I.

I believe a the injustice against a woman in our convention should be corrected.

And it will. I have learned that Southern Baptists do a very good job of course correction when it is needed.

CB Scott said...

One statement on the matter:

Dr. Green and Dr. Klouda are oceans apart.


Liam Madden said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
truth, not religion said...

"Comparisons of the two situations are not helpful to the discussion"
Actually, not a comparison but a point.

you are right on most points, and no Dr Marshall would not began to call her self a conservative, however, the comparison of the TACTICS can be made without effort.

1. underhanded tactics, both were award winning. Professors and both had the respect of peers and awards to prove it
2. Both were told their gender beiing a problem
3. both situations were handled outside the bounds of decency.
4. Both were then attacked and slandered.

thats enough,

the point of my post was actually the gosip and slander and attacks.

lets be real here. gossip, slander and attacks have been the norm for over 30 years. I see it on THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT.



Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor SLANDERERS nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


I was trying to make THAT point of this whole mess in SBC life.

It seems that slander has become a way of life.

we will stand silent before the Throne of God

Liam Madden said...

I found an interesting article about the 2004 appointment of Dr. Molly Marshall-Green as president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Kansas.

At the time of her appointment the seminary's chairman of trustees stated, ""We are very pleased that Dr. Marshall has chosen to accept the decision by the board to hire her," said incoming trustee chairman Don Wissman, who also served on the search committee. "We interviewed a field of exceptionally well-qualified candidates, but Dr. Marshall's love and devotion for theological education is what convinced the committee that she is the right choice to lead the seminary into a new era."

Of her appointment as president, Dr. Marshall-Green stated, ""I believe in what we do at Central as we seek God together," Marshall said in a statement. "We are in the process of forming and transforming ministries, which is the heart of theological education. I'm grateful for the trust and confidence the board has given me to lead Central as a teaching church seminary -- realigning congregational life with theological education."

I post this with little knowledge of Dr. Marshall-Green's teaching career other than what I have read on this blog and in Volfan's posts. And my main reason for posting it is to point out the obvious contrast between the appointment of Dr. Marshall-Green as seminary president on one hand, and the removal of Dr. Sheri Klouda at Southwestern on the other.

How is it that one seminary that bears the name Baptist has chosen a woman president to lead it, while another Baptist seminary says that women cannot teach men at all? Over here in Georgia, we are not as familiar with theological schools west of the Missisippi other than the Southern Baptist ones.

Here's the link to the article about Dr. Marshall-Green's appointment:

Anonymous said...

definitely not Servetus!said,
Here is why I say that....

Just trying to work for a little reformation in my sphere of influence.
DOG man
Robert I Masters

Steve said...

Two impertinent ideas -

Say, texasinafrica,

It's kind of ironic that we True Baptists have castigated other religious groups for looking for peripheral things to worship (icons, chips of old wood, statues, necklaces) when we go right into the BF&M 2000 and make it a near-holy reliquary/creed to be adored, and non-biblical terms like "inerrant" elevate the scriptures, in some people's estimation, to a replacement or add-on to the Trinity. Who needs the urging of the Spirit, or the pull of Jesus himself, when we have fashioned things to worship with our own hands? (Mary, set that there calf down right now!)

Perhaps I exaggerate.

Oh, hey, doncha worry about accreditation - although any accredation agency worth its parking slots would hold SWTBS in immediate comtempt for the arrogance demonstrated in its repeated gender problems.

No, it's the F.B.I. and the U.S. Dept. of Justice (and the Stalinists of the ACLU and half of the Supreme Court) that you need to worry about. I ain't no lawyer, but only a technicality would keep us from a truly devastating reaction in federal civil proceedings. We Broke The Law, it seems to me. A civil rights violation would seem to be the first thing to try, not just with Klouda & Bullock but others as well, perhaps.

Greetings from Hoptown KY
Steve Austin

Charlie Mac said...

Let's see if I can get this straight.
1. According to some, the scripture specifically prohibits women from teaching men. (and holding certain other offices of the local church)
2. Some well known Southern Baptist men have granted authority to certain women to teach "under their authority".
If statements 1 and 2 are correct let me ask a few questions.
1. Where in the scripture is this authority, to grant authority for women to teach men, found?
2. If not found in the scripture where does this authority come from?
(I just read the 2000BFM cover to cover and it is not mentioned there.)
3. Does this rule of scriptural law only apply to wives of the person granting the authority?
I suppose you could say that I have tenure as a Southern Baptist. (60+ years) I have been an ordained Southern Baptist deacon long enough to have tenure there also. So, do I possibly have as much authority to grant authority to women to teach men as the afore mentioned men, or does the scripture stipulate one must have a "PHD" to have this authority?
Mac McFatter
Semmes, AL

Catherine said...

Dear Wade, I was referred to the story on Dr Klouda's situation by another Episcopalian. As a former Baptist [born and raised] I appreciate your stance on the exclusion of women in the ministry, or teaching, even if they are "co-heirs in Christ" per St Paul. What part of "co-heir" is not understood?
Jesus came to fulfill the Law and He rebuked the Pharisees and Saduceesa about their legalism. Now I don't claim to know the "latest" on the SBC but from the article and from reading your blog, I am prayerfully thankful for men such as yourself who are finally seeing the grace of Christ in women as well as men. God did choose a woman to bear our Savior and not a clam. Therefore in my view, women are to be honored and treated equally. Christ first revealed Himself to Mary after His resurrection, not to any of the male disciples. Don't get me wrong. I am not "anti-guy", it's simply that the evidence is present in Scripture for the equal treatment of both men and women. And let's not forget the historical context of when St Paul wrote these letters. Many of those historical and patriarchal notions do not apply to the context of the present and those who pretend that they do, do not know the Jesus I know.

In Christ's love and gentleness,

The Rev. Catherine Windsor

volfan007 said...


Jesus called God....Father.

preacherette windsor,

are you saying that i am not saved....given that i beleive that a woman should not teach a man in a public setting according to 1 tim. 2? and, given the fact that most sb's believe that women should not be pastors according to many passages in the bible...are you saying that we are all not saved...that we dont know the real Jesus? your statement was.... Many of those historical and patriarchal notions do not apply to the context of the present and those who pretend that they do, do not know the Jesus I know. end quote.


Tim Batchelor said...


You still have not answered the question. At what point will this be corrected? I used the word vindication because to this point hte efforts on correction have focused on giving a SBC institutin a black eye, cricicizing and cutting down an agency leader without knowing the whole story, and showing a blatant disrespect for the trustees of that institution.

I guess I am looking for actual solutions instead of the ungodly shots you are taking at individuals. Do you have any solutions or is your plan simply to attempt to work the masses up into a frenzy and hope the outcome is something better than what happens in most churches when its members try to solve problems using the same approach? said...


Allow me to be specific.

Sheri Klouda is near bankruptcy. Her husband is unable to find sustained work due to medical problems. Sheri exhausted her retirement savings to move her family. She is making about 20% less salary, does not make additional money at Taylor as she did at SWBTS teaching extra classes (those classes are not available at Taylor), and the burden of a mortgage on a house she cannot sell is unbearable.

I do not believe that we should wait for financial reimbursement by SWBTS and hiring her back to correct their injustice, which either they will do by trustee vote or possibly forced to do by the courts (that is yet to be seen).

We as Southern Baptists should help the Kloudas. Several people have stepped up to pay for the next five months mortgage payment. I would like to raise enough funds to reimburse Sheri's retirement account.

When her finances are restored, when she has been properly compensated by SWBTS for her tenure track career being destroyed for gender, when her fifteen year old daughter no longer has bitterness in her heart toward Southern Baptists, but deeply appreciates our convention's people, when Sheri Klouda has her career restored --- THEN the point has been reached where this has been corrected.

It might take a year or two.

Liam Madden said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tim Batchelor said...


I have absolutely no problem asking the trustees to grant her severance and compensation in this circumstance. I suspect that there are few Southern Baptists that would not. Did you approach the trustees about this before creating this uproar?

What exactly do you believe it will take to restore damaged feelings?

I would be willing to bet that most pastors who read this blog have also either been dismissed from or have left a place of ministry under pressure. It sticks in one's craw. Staff who find themself in conflict need to be careful to guard their spouses and children from the effects of conflict. Sometimes it is better for them not to know what has been said or why a change is needed. I don't know of anything but God and time that can heal such wounds.

As I see it, most Southern Baptists would have no problem with her employment at Southwestern. The president of the institution had a vision for training pastors using pastoral figures. I believe he has a right to guide the seminary according to his convictions. The problem is that Dr Klouda no longer fit into the oganization under his vision. It appears from the one side that is known that the departure was handled poorly.

Dr. Patterson has decided to limit his comments on the subject and accept the heat so we don't know the full story. I will choose to reserve judgment of him while being willing to find some solution in the spirit of Christian love to help the Klouda's. A reinstatement as long as Dr. Patterson remains at SWBTS would not be in Dr. Klouda's or SWBTS' interest. I know from experience that a lot of angry people throwing stones at the perceived offenders offers little consolation and results more harm than good. I will gladly be part of a Christlike solution but have no desire to create more problems in doing so.

Alycelee said...

Volfan aka David,
Regardless of how you feel,
Regardless of what you believe the scripture teaches.
preacherette windsor is rude if not completely condescending. You have often wondered why people just won't listen to you. Perhaps this is why. You owe this woman an apology. No one deserves to be spoken to this way-even if we disagree. Are you prejudice against women? How could you possible deny it with comments like that?

Light said...

Wade said: "Several people have stepped up to pay for the next five months mortgage payment. I would like to raise enough funds to reimburse Sheri's retirement account."

Wade, I am not a Southern Baptist, but as a sister in Christ, I am outraged at this injustice and would like to make a financial contribution to help Sheri and her family. How can I do this?

volfan007 said...


i have nothing against women...geeesh! i do have something against women preachers, but not the women. i am a preacher....i am a man....i just assume that a woman preacher would be a preacherette.


i didnt notice you getting onto ms. windsor about calling me lost?!?!? she called me and every other person who disagrees with her non christians. why didnt you respond to that?

God bless you, alcylee. may the Lord shine His face upon you in a wonderful way today.


Alycelee said...

David, perhaps that post was deleted, I saw no such comment, only one from her.
She is, from my point of view a guest here, in that she stated she is Episcopalian, so it would be obvious if you read her complete post as Baptist we would not necessarily agree jot and tittle with her doctrinally. We do however have an important common denominator-Jesus Christ and He being LORD commands us to show respect and even more LOVE for one another.
Your comment PREACHETTE is not a common assumption, it is condesending-you know it, I know it and everyone here knows it.
Your unwillingness to apologize is telling-especially when you've been ask to. You do at least, know something, if very little about me.

Anonymous said...

Names & addresses of SWBTS Trustees posted here:

volfan007 said...


all you have to do is scroll up to see that ms. windsor used to be baptist. she left the sbc to become episcopalian. also, her last statement read this.....Many of those historical and patriarchal notions do not apply to the context of the present and those who pretend that they do, do not know the Jesus I know. end quote.

that means that she is callling me and every one else who disagrees with her radical feminists views lost....unsaved...dont know God. she has just judged us all lost who dont believe in women pastors. did she not?


volfan007 said...


btw, i have called women pastors preacherettes many times. and, i have called women deacons deaconettes many times. i have used those words from the pulpit many times as well. you are the first one to take offense to me using those terms. interesting.


Catherine said...

Dear Alcyee, thank you for being the enlighted, Spirit-filled woman that you are...truly a credit to our Savior.

As for Volfan, I hear his fear and for that I am truly sorry. No one who knows Christ should fear a sister in Christ. In no way did I say or imply that anyone is lost, in fact, how can anyone be when He came to die for us all, ALL.

And thank you Alcyee for standing up for the dignity that belongs to all women and is not shown in this man's comments, nor was it shown to Dr Klouda. I will hold Volfan up in prayer for God's love to permeate his fearful heart; I have already forgiven him.

As a matter of note, I and other Baptists have left this denomination for years, for reasons like this diatribe against women and their alleged "place". Most Episcopalians are Baptists according to the statistics. I have never wondered why, given such mean-spirited and vehement treatment of women by men such as Paige Patterson and Volfan. I pray for all who need their eyes opened and logs removed from their eyes.

I am however very thankful to God for men such as Wade Burleson...may God bless him and Christlike men like him seven-fold.

In Christ's gentle but firm love,

The Rev. Catherine Windsor