Thursday, April 03, 2008

Those Who Make the BFM Say What It Doesn't

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

"While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

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

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

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

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

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Monday.

Wade Burleson


Anonymous said...

Come on Wade, by now you should realize that stress relief is only found in suing the Missouri Baptist Convention for 10 million dollars, not in pretending to be nice to Dorothy Patterson. I saw you sticking your tongue out at her picture. Come on, sue the MBC. You might get 20 million. Oh, and you can pick anything you want to sue us for. I might suggest stealing the Baptist Building and then suing the MBC because there is not a library it big enough to put all of your books, or maybe that the front door is not big enough for your head...either way precedent is set...Come sue Jesus!

and with that I am off to bed :)


Bob Cleveland said...


I ran into as Dad of a young man who spent several years in our church. his son is a missionary in West Africa.

The missionary service started when he was a member of our church. While he was in school, he acted as a part-time youth minister and activities director in our church.

Then he was led to go to Africa as a short-term summer missionary and he was bitten, but good. He came back, finished his education, got married, and applied to the IMB.

Well, his wife turned out to be quite gifted at speaking and even at preaching, and when it came time to go to work, she could not sign, in good conscience, the BF&M 2000.

They are now very effective in West Africa as CBF missionaries.

Sad. The SBC could use them. As long as we continue to debate this stuff in abstract terms, it'll remain a high-minded debate. Put flesh and blood with it, and it's another matter. That's why what you're saying is important right now.

I have to wonder how many stories there really are out there, of promising Christian warriors derailed by (principally) one man's unwarranted prejudice against womem in the ministry. At the least, they've been run off to other pastures, and at worst they've been so discouraged as to be driven out of service altogether.

CB Scott said...


Fair is fair. You promised me you would be fair in the content of this post.

You have been.

There have been several things wherein I have to disagree with you of late, especially dealing with ecclesiology and I still do, but in this post you have articulated what I see as a problem.

I really believe the Scripture does teach that the pastor of a local church is to be of the male gender.

It is as plain as day that the "Baptist guide" for practice and polity, the BF&M 2000 does say exactly what you report it to say.

I really believe any other prohibition is extra-biblical as to what women can and cannot do in the practice of their faith.

I really believe that to say the BF&M says anything else is prohibited to women is to defraud the document as to its content.

For me, it has nothing to do with culture, tradition or anything else.

I am sure we will greatly disagree on other things, but on the content of this post I stand with you because I believe it to be true and for no other motivation.


Steve said...

In two responses we get to see the terrible results of man-centered theology where political ease seems to trump the will of God, where some strut about saying, "Look what we got changed!" and, just before it, a sample of the hate required to pervert things as precious as the mission boards. May the Lord forgive us for not waking up and acting sooner to correct this sort of thing.

austinokie said...

A very precise and thoughtful blog. Thank you. As a friend of many ordained women, as one who has experienced the joy of hearing women preach and watching them carry out their God given call to pastor, and as a pastor who has a staff that includes four ordained women, I just don't understand how someone as sensitive and thoughtful as yourself can continue to waste your time with such such depleted thinking as the so-called Baptists of this ilk. Don't you get it? the B,F, & M statement on "office of pastor" is just the surface of a deeply held bigotry against think not? ask Women....

Anyway, as long as you hang in there, more power to you...I just wish you were using your splendid gifts for other causes of the Gospel than the pettiness of your brothers of the SBC.

Anonymous said...

CB, great comment and assessment.

John Daly said...

“All Southern Baptists readily concede that unless the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is revised, women are officially prohibited from serving in the 'office of pastor' within a church that wishes to cooperate with other Southern Baptists churches or be identified with the Southern Baptist Convention.”

—I concede this realizing what it means and humbly stand by it.

I also get the meaning from these posts that your fight is not with the elder/pastor role per se but with folks using that argument and jumping off the deep end with a whole litany of prohibitions. Point taken.

Mr. Cleveland makes a solid point here: “As long as we continue to debate this stuff in abstract terms, it'll remain a high-minded debate. Put flesh and blood with it, and it's another matter.” Whether abstract or face-to-face I would hold to the elder/pastor view as being reserved for one gender only. His statement was made in the context of missionaries (which I agree) but arguments are easy when you’re not sitting in front of the person.

For example, when praying at abortion clinics there are many present (the majority actually) who hold to a different view of justification. A view foreign to the Gospel but yet they’re taking a strong stand on an important issue such as people living. So here I am standing next to a person who I feel is in grave error concerning their very soul but we’re partnering together in a worthwhile cause. We are no longer in the abstract, we are face-to-face. And lovingly—and with grace, He has allowed this earthen, very cracked vessel (gaping holes actually) to proclaim His Gospel to all who had ears to listen.

And Roger, while you may see male elders/pastors as petty, we see it as endeavoring to stay true to the Word of God…hardly petty would you say?

John in the STL

Anonymous said...

It sounds like according to them Jesus shouldn't have sent women to proclaim to the male disciples the wonderful message of our faith that he is risen. Of course the male disciples didn't believe them, so I guess that makes it ok. The women went to him, but the male disciples waited till he came to them. Wonder if that tells us anything.

Oh well, Jesus did a few other things that these people wouldn't like, and conveniently ignore.

I still wonder with their attitudes how they decide it's ok for those unworthy people (are women people?) to be allowed to teach males of any age. Taken to such a logical conclusion, male children should be taken at birth from the influence of these unworthy creatures who could only be allowed to cook for them and change their diapers while men teach them everything.

And no male who lifts holy hands (I Timothy 2:8) has answered my question from a previous post whether silver jewelry is ok, since gold and pearls are forbidden in the same chapter (I Timothy 2:9) as the passage about authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11).

Either women are completely human or women are lesser creatures and can be put under all sorts of restrictions. What's next, Baptist burkas?


Bob Cleveland said...


I recall at the inception of the civil rights movement, watching more than one Southern governor justifying racial discrimination, on the basis of "separate but equal" and "states' rights". All high-sounding theories.

Then I saw a news special about a nursing home (here in Alabama, when I lived in Indiana) showing elderly ladies literally sleeping in chicken-wire pigeonholes on shelves. It broke my heart.

I cried. And it forever changed my view of civil rights.

While we're in that "high-minded debate" (and I do not view your blog as doing that ... you're dealing with people here...), we're not likely to be crying over flesh-and-blood people living in the pigeonholes of gender prejudice.

That's what I'm saying. said...


I am in a dilemma. I see and understand the biblical arguments of those conservatives who have no issue with a woman pastor. I also would never hesitate to cooperate with an evangelical, conservative church that makes a decision to call a woman as their pastor. Yet, my own church would not follow that path, nor would I lead my church to do so. In addition, I understand how some interpret the Scripture as prohibiting a woman from serving in the 'office' of pastor. To them, it is a matter of biblical precendent and assumption - not direct commandment.

Correction is needed in the SBC. My goal is to bring about correction regarding the mimimization of the roles and ministries of Southern Baptist women - in areas other than the office of pastor. To correct the problems, you must first accept the SBC where we are - and not run, quit, or separate. Though I think it was a mistake to force Southern Baptist Churches to accept the prohibition on women pastors by placing it in our Confession - a matter which ought to have been dealt with at each autonomous local church - we are where we are.

It is my goal to stop the spiral to the far right on this issue, a descent downward that is being orchestrated by complementarian hardliners who may have been behind the prohibition in the first place. I appreciate your comments. I confess, I learn far more from you than I do k. michael.

Bob, good thoughts, as usual.

Paul Burleson said...


I have to admit that if I believed the text of scripture said, and meant when inspired by the Spirit originally, that only men could be deacons or pastors AND they had to be red-headed and part their hair in the middle, [this would exclude bald-headed men of course] that would be what I believe and proclaim.

If someone added that they had to be six feet tall and weigh 250 pounds because that makes them less likely to be intimidated by others, I would NOT believe that to be scriptural and would not proclaim it.

However, if the text of scripture speaking about deacons/pastors as to gender, color of hair, height and weight was understood differently by folks, having good people on both sides, I would NOT separate from a fellow believer over it. By 'good people' I mean people who accept the inspiration and sufficiencey of the scripture and name Jesus as Lord of life.

I might enjoy attending a local fellowship that held my view of such matters. But I would not call the other side heretics or accuse them of NOT believing the bible.

I would even endeavor to cooperate in a mission enterprise worldwide with churches that might be on the otherside of the issue but do proclaim the gospel.

But I would also want to be open to the fact that my application, that the 'red-headed' and 'part it in the middle' standard rules out bald-headed men, MIGHT be incorrect because the text MIGHT be meaning 'if they have hair.'

My point is simply that I must always be open to the fact that some of my positions on lesser issues may not be fully correct in every way [to think otherwise would be the height of spiritual egotism it seems to me] because I'm still seeing throught a glass darkly, and that my ultimate fellowship with believers must be around weightier theological matters. Those would have to do with the Person and Work of Christ [as Paul told the Corinthians] in other words, the gospel, and I would want local congregations and individual christians to be responsible for interpreting those lesser issues. This, because...WHATEVER UNITIES US ULTIMATELY DIVIDES US.

Finally, this would make it essential ANY confession of faith created by that cooperating convention of churches NOT be specific as to lesser doctrines, and, when necessary to identify what makes a baptist, is specific, it must make certain it NEVER trumpts the collective conscience of churches or individuals thus taking the place of the scripturs and the Holy Spirit in ANYONE'S life.

It seems so simple to me...but that's just me.

Dad said...


Nobody could not have said it better.

Though I have been trying to say what you just beautifully articulated for three years now.

BB said...

I would like to offer a few thoughts from someone who is no longer "one of you," but who still mourns the seperating.

Wade, you wrote "There is no prohibition regarding women serving as Hebrew professors at our seminaries; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Vice-Presidents or even Presidents of our Southern Baptist agencies; there is no prohibition regarding women serving as Strategy Coordinators with the International Mission Board; there is no prohibition regarding women teaching men; and there is no prohibition regarding women serving as chaplains."

As I read those lines my mind kept going, "And there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. . ." and it dawned on me that when I was a SB, I felt condemned. For over 50 years I felt condemned for who God made me and who he had called me to be - a woman called into His service. My brothers and sisters, this should not have been, and should not be.

I served as missionary with the IMB. 2000 came and I could not in good conscience stay with the IMB. I returned to the states and became a healthcare chaplain. 2002 came and I could no longer stay a Southern Baptist. Now I'm on the outside, making my way toward another home. The transition is difficult, but certainly no more difficult than feeling condemned for the past half-century for just being the servant minister God has called me to be.

Wade, you wrote, "To correct the problems, you must first accept the SBC whe - and not run, quit, or seperate." As a woman in ministry, I did not have that option. As a man, you do. Blessings on your journey and strength as you travail.

Someone wrote earlier, "Put flesh and blood with it and it's a different matter." I rarely post. I rarely take the time or expend the emotional energy, but today I wanted to illumine the picture with a little more flesh and blood.


Anonymous said...

In my opinion the Baptist Faith and Message has always been a broad confession that most "faith" mission agencies would not tolerate. Agencies such as TEAM, C&MA, Pioneers, New Tribes, Send International. So I see the tightening of Theological parameters as a wonderful return to the Fidelity of Scripture. Lets praise God for this movement of His Spirit.Semper Reformanda.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters said...


May I elicit an answer to my question to you?

If there is success in changing the views of the SBC toward women, and if women - like yourself - no longer feel 'condemned' for fulfilling their calling, would you consider returning to the Southern Baptist Convention and represent us in the medical chaplaincy field?



Rex Ray said...

You said, “I am in a dilemma.” I agree we all are.

Let’s say two guys are going to have a theological debate. One says, (behind ‘closed doors) “Look out behind you!”

As the other is distracted, the one in ‘secrete’ kicks him between the legs, and says, “Now the overwhelming majority of the church delegates have voted and you have lost the debate.”

That’s how the BFM 2000 was passed. The churches were ‘blindsided’ as they were kept in the dark, and we are stuck with “The office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

“ Scripture”…that’s a laugh! Qualified by Paige Patterson is more correct. I’ll bet his small hand-picked committee did not have one word in their BFM that did not pass HIS interpretation.

Everywhere you look, Patterson is pushing his agenda against women. “It takes only one wrong person among you to infect all the others.” (Romans 5:9)

Will God have a different place in heaven for the thousands that have been saved by women pastors?

Will God give Patterson a special crown for keeping women pastors out of the SBC, or will He say, I have called many, but you have denied them from answering my call, and the resulting lost souls in hell are on your hands?

Thanks! Your words made me want to cry.

Anonymous said...

Wade, It may be time for a movement to liberate and empower women in SBC life similar to the civil rights movement to liberate and empower minorities of America. Your post today is excellent and the SBC needs to deal with it.

May God prick the conscience of our convention to treat women with the equality, respect and empowerment that they biblically deserve.


Lin said...

"It seems that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, just like the Southern Baptist Convention, is now being controlled by a few hard-lined complementarians that are forcing their views on everyone else."

This is exactly what has happened and more and more are catching on and realize they have gone 'extra-Biblical', not just a difference in interpretations. It has 'regressed' more and more into Patriarchy.

Melanie W said...

Thank you, Wade, for an excellent series of posts and to the commentors who are willing to discuss this issue in a manner that glorifies God. It breaks my heart to hear stories like those of BB or the missionaries Bob spoke of, or indeed missionaries I know personally who were forced in one way or the other to leave the IMB. And they WILL leave - I don't believe my generation of women is going to be content to sit around and let their gifts and passions go unused.

I find it sad when modern bodies of believers are more concerned with preserving the traditions of the past than with progressing the cause of justice in the world.

So, as my little cousin would say, let's "keepin' talkin'" about this issue.

Melanie Warren
Broken Arrow, OK

Anonymous said...

Wade, Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate what you are trying to do, though sometimes I think you are batting your head against a brick wall. But I have had times when I felt God was calling me to bat my head against a brick wall, so why can't God call others to do that as well? And though my brick walls didn't always fall, the walls of Jericho did, so there is hope.

People listen to you. I don't know how much change will come, but hang in there.

I understand all too well what BB has gone through, though it has not been my path. There have been too many stories like hers. At least she did not lose her faith or calling. I know some who did because of anti-women words and actions, and I hurt for them as well.

A word to you men who think women are unworthy. Did you learn anything from your mothers? Did a woman ever say anything that you found useful in your spiritual life? What about your wives? Or do you make them be silent all the time? But I forget, if you don't think women have anything to say. you wouldn't be reading my comment anyway.


Anonymous said...

I honestly believe this issue is a public example of rebellion to the Word of God. I do not think that God will continue to bless your misssion or ministry with such outward rebellion.
As Mark Dever said on a "Together for the Gospel" Blog. It is not a civil rights issue but a Sufficiency issue. My generation and younger have heard all the arguments and found the egalitarian side wanting from Scripture.
It did not go unnoticed that not one appeal from BB was from Scripture directly!
I, as an mk from Indonesia, do not want to return to the old days of the Southern Baptist Convention.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters said...

Mr. Masters,

There is another Peson who goes by the name of Master that determines whether or not I am in rebellion, and His Word takes precedence over your words.

Sorry, but your words ring shallow, hollow and lifeless.


Anonymous said...

"Wade, It may be time for a movement to liberate and empower women in SBC life similar to the civil rights movement to liberate and empower minorities of America. "

Why is it that the black guy always has to play the race card? This has nothing to do with "civil rights." This has to do with God given gender roles (which are equal in rank), the institution of the family, and the institution of the church. Maybe sir (Mr. McKissic), it is from YOU whom Wade has learned to combine the unchristian use of the faulty analogy and the appeal to ignorance.

Women will never officially be recognized as biblical pastors and elders by the convention. It is unbiblical.


Anonymous said...

What part of "I do not permit a women to teach" do you not understand... contextually of course!

In Christian Love
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

The ignorance and superficiality of the questions and 'arguments' offered by Mr. Masters and Mr. Crowder have become very tiresome.


Anonymous said...


What part of "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" do you not understand?

In Christian Love,


Anonymous said...

K.Michael said "Why is it that the black guy always has to play the race card?"

-Perhaps because (unlike a white man like yourself) he daily deals with people making assumptions about the content of his character because of the color of his skin.


Anonymous said...

1 Timothy 2:12 has the prohibition against women teaching or having authority over men. 1 Timothy 2:9 says women should not wear gold (Is silver ok?) or pearls or have braided hair. 1 Timothy 2:8 says men should lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing. Which are cultural and which are for all time?


Tom Parker said...


You are a Punk and are only hurting yourself!! Keep spitting out your venom for all to see, it will be a written record for all to see for years to come.

Debbie Kaufman said...

k. michael crowder: I hope with all in me that Wade deletes your last comment. I am seething as I read it. Shame on you. And you a supposed minister? God help us.

Anonymous said...

I am a lay women who wants to cry when I realize how the SBC feels about women. If women in the local church were to go on strike, the the church could not fumction.

Only By His Grace said...

K. Michael,

You are much bigger than the silly remark you made. Evidently, you are tired and need to go to bed.

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...

Well good question from the Bible! I would say that the verse means that the ground at the foot of the cross is level. The book of Galatians was written to what audience? It does not speak to roles at all.
Good exegesis will lead you to that conclusion about that passage.
I believe that demonstrates a exegetical error right out of the gate for CBE proponents.

from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Only By His Grace said...


Thank you for articulating my position, too.

I, too, take an inerrantist approach to Scripture. I am not what Wade would call a "hard-line complementarian."

I know what I believe and I know what my church believes, and I try to keep us walking together in the light of God's Written Word.

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...

"I, as an mk from Indonesia, do not want to return to the old days of the Southern Baptist Convention"

And I, as a person, do not want to return to 1571 'Geneva' with authoritarian magistrates and a state church. Now,was that Biblical?


Debbie Kaufman said...

Robert Masters: Two of my favorite stories in scripture are Mary and Martha and the book of Esther. These are wonderful stories of women who followed what God has led them to do. May I be a follower as these women were and not allow men such as yourself to stop me from doing so.

Lin said...

"What part of "I do not permit a women to teach" do you not understand... contextually of course!"

It is obvious you do not understand it except what you have been taught by other men what to think it means.

Now, if you could kindly explain to me at what age a boy becomes a man (in context, of course) perhaps we could set all the SBC churches straight. :o)

Or perhaps you could explain why the word "authenteo" is only used ONCE in scripture in 1 Tim 2 or why 1 Corin 14 includes verse 36 which negates verses 34 and 35.

Or why Paul writes assuming women are prophesying in 1 Corin 11 so the question is whether to do so with their heads covered or not.

Scripture does not contradict itself so it must be YOUR interpretation.

In any event, it is a secondary issue and would behoove us all to re-read 1 Corinthians 13 as it is sandwiched in between them both for a reason. :o)

Anonymous said...

The book of Galatians was written to what audience? It does not speak to roles at all.

So you are admitting that there are specific audiences for the letters? That, is a start.

What roles? Where are these specific roles?


Anonymous said...

I dont believe that Geneva only represented those two principles, a state church and capital punishment for Anabaptist.
I think the expository example of John Calvin was something we can follow today.
I like the centrality of the Word of God that existed in Geneva pulpits.
I like the fact that God was the center of Gevena worship
I like the fact that the highest man to the lowliest peasant could discuss theology and understand it in Geneva.
I like the fact that the Geneva helped spread a worldwide reformation.

Three questions for you...if Calvin hated Anabaptist so much why did he marry one?
Was Calvin on the council of Geneva at the time of the trial of Servetus?
Do you hold the same beliefs that Servetus did at that time?

Lastly you dont care for the work that the the Red Cross does around the world...remember they came from Geneva!

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...


I believe that (in Christ) there are neither egalitarian nor complementarian, neither cessasionist nor continualist, neither teetotaler nor winebibber, neither Baptist nor Pentecostal for we are all one in Christ Jesus.

I am a Christian who is a member of a local church that contributes to the work of the SBC as well as other Christian organizations.

When the SBC and those other organizations work to further the exercise of the great commission and Christ’s universal church I support them. When those organizations seek to divide the body and build earthly kingdoms I do not.

People are literally going to hell while we argue over interpretations of scripture that will be points of debate until the day we all sit at our father’s feet and he explains to us that which we could not understand while on this earth.


Brian R. Giaquinto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I am in complete agreement that we should follow words of motions, confessions etc.

I recognize that even if we agree on words, there can be varying interpretations (though not in the case cited here) and beyond that issues regarding the application and carrying out of words.

The question for me is what is the best way to influence trustees and agencies toward an application that is consistent with the words but does not go beyond what has been agreed upon.

For me, there is some gray area here inasmuch as institutions have many decisions to make about their operations that may touch on principles that have been adopted by the larger body. But that does not justify anything an institution might do in the name of the BFM.

Continued discussion and personal persuasion is my preferred route. "Revolution" and "holding someone accountable", while not always bad, can be blunt and ineffective instruments.

I am not sure that I have any wisdom to offer on the most wise course, however.

Common observation shows us that once battle lines are drawn that it becomes harder to win hearts and minds, and it becomes a matter of survival.

Change agents often lose support from people who would be their cohorts when this occurs because some people will sense a threat to the corporate body. They may prioritize supporting the existing status for preservation reasons and postpone or subordinate the concern of the change agent with which they otherwise would agree.

Again, I see the point, and is some, though not all particulars, agree.

The question that is still open for me is how to address the issues in a productive and not a destructive way.


Anonymous said...

Nice try, Mr. Geneva. But you seem to have only read ONE side of the history which is not unusual with those who worship the Reformation instead of Christ. (There has ALWAYS been a remnant church)

That Calvin married an AnaBaptist is a stretch. His wife was the widow of his friend John Storder and their connections to Ana baptists are tenuous, short and in their early years.

Calvin was a Catholic, too!

Too bad, Calvin did not see the truth in much of the Ana Baptists position of the sacraments and sacralism. How do you deal with that? A brilliant theologian ignoring such basic principles of the NT? He would not have become famous and published but would have more credibility had he hidden out in caves with the persecuted Ana baptists!

So which is truth:

Did Calvin acknowledge that Servetus was in his congregation and have him arrested or not?

Did Calvin try to get him to recant his heresy and when he did not, did Calvin ask that he be beheaded instead of burned?

Or, did Calvin order 'green wood' so he would burn slower?

Did Calvin write letters to his friend after the burning of Servetus complaining of those who were 'persecuting' him for his part with having Servatus burned?


Yes,he was a brilliant theologian and I believe election is in every page of scripture but Calvin loved his eventual position and stature...too much. Just like all men do who have too much power/influence too long.

To try and link me with the same beliefs as Servetus because I question this worship of Calvin only shows your immaturity and refusal to look at facts. You have erected an idol that you put before Christ. Many are doing it today, unfortuantly. I pray it is a young man's passing fancy and that Christ alone with soon take center stage.

Lucy said...

Mr. Masters,

I do not permit that woman to teach men fits contextually, linguistically, gramatically and historically fits with a prohibition of a specific woman in the church over which Timothy was providing oversight.

It is also consistent with the numerous examples in the New Testament of women prophesying (the seven prophetesses), women teaching men (as the example of both the man and woman instructing Paul) and women ministering.

You may not accept the interpretation - but to call such an interpretation of the sacred, infallible and inerrant text 'rebellion' is over the top.



Anonymous said...

How nice shall we all sing Kumbayah in the SBC.
How would you decide what to teach at a Southern Baptist seminary in a foreign country. All-inclusive like that too.
I seem to remember that kinda teaching at the Baptist seminary in penang -malaysia. When a professor there said that the book of Genesis was not literal when it was talking about a flood.
Seems to me that that is what the CBF is al about---why dont you join it.

from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert i Masters

Anonymous said...

K. Michael Crowder,

What you call the "race card," I call the truth card. If you can't see the relationship between the civil rights movement and the inclusion, affirmation and empowerment of women in SBC life, that explains why women are systematically discriminated against and their gifts are not recognized and utilized in SBC life outside of the Senior Pastor's role to any significant degree. This is the identical treatment that the SBC displayed toward Blacks and other minorities for many years and in some ways continue to do so. I am absolutely convinced based on Scriptures and Scripture alone that a female is not to serve as a senior pastor of a local church (I Cor. 11:3, 8-10; I Timothy 2:12). I'm equally as convinced that a woman can proclaim or preach God's Word in the Sunday and Wednesday worship services and during the Sunday School hour similar to what Mrs. Criswell did for years.

Although we have only male elders at our church and our church constitution insists that our elders be males, I'm not absolutely convinced that in an elders form of church government that if the majority of elders are males and the senior pastor is a male, that a female cannot serve as an elder. Females serve as elders at Willow Creek in Chicago. The trustee board system in the SBC functions similarly to the elders body system in many local churches and just as no one considers it biblically inappropriate for women to sit on SBC trustee boards, I don't see why it would be inappropriate for women to serve as elders but not as senior pastors - because again, the Bible is clear as far as I'm concerned on the gender of the senior pastor. The Bible is not as clear to me regarding women serving as trustees or elders, therefore I would err on the side of grace.

K, I have not employed nor do I believe Wade has employed an "unchristian use of [a] faulty analogy" nor "an appeal to ignorance." Your analysis expressed in this thread explains why the SBC annual meetings and leadership at the entity head level remains predominately White and why women are discriminated against at every level.

Just as we've seen dramatic improvement with the SBC treatment toward Blacks, one day we will see the SBC treat women with fairness, inclusion, equality, empowerment and the affirmation and utilization of their gifts with the exception of the senior pastor's role.
Dwight McKissic

Only By His Grace said...


Please do not delete K. Michael Crowder's comment. What he has written he has written and it should stand as testimony either for or against him.

If he has a change of soul (mind, heart and will), let him write a revision stating the change.

Matthew 12:37.

Phil in Norman. said...


Excellent comment. I have already deleted one anymous comment that was not as nice to K Michael. Thanks for your Christian spirit. said...

Off for my Friday afternoon golf. Away from the computer, so everyone be nice. It is an open forum. Phil, I will not delete K Michael's comment. I hope people will respond as graciously and Christian as Dwight, to whom the comment was addressed.

Anonymous said...

K Michael,

For you to write "Why is it that the black man always has to play the race card" is as offensive to Dwight and his friends as someone who would write Why is it that the ignorant red neck always has to write like a jack ass would be to you and your friends. I know the administrator of this blog will delete this, but I'm angry.

Lin said...

"Continued discussion and personal persuasion is my preferred route. "Revolution" and "holding someone accountable", while not always bad, can be blunt and ineffective instruments"

I guess I would need more specific information here to really understand where you are coming from. Do you mean personl persuasion as in private?

I have yet to see anyone call for 'revolution' so I think using that word is a bit curious.

Having public discussions can lead to being informed and to holding others accountable. It also leads to 'bluntness' from some in public conversation which some call negative truths. Are you uncomfortable with that? Because it seems people can be uncomfortable with anything they disagree with no matter how it is presented.

public discussion seems to have been used quite a bit to bring about change when one reads history.

Who gets to decide?

Anonymous said...

Mr Burleson,
I was not saying that that your interpetation of that passage was your sole reason for being in rebellion. I was refering to your whole blog activity concerning gender roles.
I sincerely believed that back when Marty Duren was heading up SBCOUTPOST.
I stand by my contention that it is still the case.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Only By His Grace said...


By the testimony of those closest to Calvin, we know that he had little care for his fellow human beings.

He was par excelent as a commentary writer of Scriptures in most passages, but as Debbie says, he was terribly lacking in many parts of Scripture:
1. Infant baptism to wash away original sin.
2. The Lord's Supper having "presence" in the sense that it became the actual or real blood and flesh of Christ. He only differed with the Roman Catholic Church as to definition of Church and how the bread and wine was changed.
3. He believed in no separation of church and state and may have believed toward the end of his life in the supremacy of church over state.

Baptist are only Calvinist in the sense of Original Sin, Perseverance of the Saints, Limited Atonement, and Unconditional Election with severe reservations about his belief in double predestination (ordained some to Heaven and some to Hell before the foundation of the world) and with the ramifications of Irresistible Grace.

Baptist have always had a strong belief in "soul competency" which is heresy to Calvinism as you should well know if you are a Baptist.

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...

What Iam really trying to say about Geneva is this point.

In Christian Love
Robert i Masters

Anonymous said...

"What Iam really trying to say about Geneva is this point."

You may want to check out other views that are not so 'invested' in the outcome. Just for balance.

And, thanks for dropping the Geneva. :o)


Paul Burleson said...


I want you to know that I personally was offended [not just dismayed or disagree with but personally offended] at the remarks of Michael Crowder. Because of this I've written him privately.

I do want to tell you that I appreciate your gracious response to him. You stuck with the issues instead of reacting to the person. I'm not surprised. You have spiritual and moral convictions that have stood the test of time and the energy of not a few who have attempted to get you to violate those convictions. For the kind of nonconfrontational person that I know you to be by nature [though you have the courage to do so when needed as history has shown] that has taken a real measure of the Spirit. I thank you for standing firm again.

I count it a personal joy to have you as a personal friend.

Anonymous said...


On the last night of His life, Jesus earnestly prayed for unity for all believers then and forever.

It is His prayer, His desire and His will that we become and remain One in spirit. That doesn't mean that we will not disagree, it only means that even when we disagree, we must still work towards unity of spirit and unity of the truth, or faith, that we hold in common.

Jesus' prayer was this: "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world...Holy Father keep them in Your name...thay they may be one, even as We are.

If and when the church I serve chooses to no longer contribute to the SBC then I will no longer concern mysdelf with the SBC.

So long as the SBC accepts our support - financial and otherwise then I consider it my duty to see that those resources are used to further Christ's commands -- not to limit his kingdom according to our small views of his great plans.



Anonymous said...

I guess will just have to disagree on what Baptist believe in the SBC.
BTW you are welcome to come to a Southern Baptist church that believes in the Doctrines of Grace here in the heart of "Geneva".(nashville)

Grace to you
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

So I should not read Rebecca Groothuis because she is too invested in the outcome of her egalitarian writings! Please... sounds like your arguing for convictionless authors.
Iam convinced of the purpose and vision of Founders ministry that is why I write ...............

from the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

John Daly said...

To the elder Burleson, (the better looking one :)

I too left a message for KMC. Whether we agree in here or not, we're family and while we might not physically meet this side of Glory, we certainly can express our beliefs with the highest of regards for one another.

From the Southern Baptist St. Louis,

And yea, that's a Red Sox hat I have on and I work right next to Busch Stadium in STL.

truth, not religion said...

About 10 posts back I used the term "gender bigot" and the wolves started growling and howling.

I am married to the godliest person I have ever know. She was called to Africa as a very young girl and lived her life preparing for that. Eventually, she went and spent years with the FMB there.

She led many to the Lord. When she came home, she expierenced the bigotry first hand.

Now, the mentality of sin is permeating the culture we call the "pastorate".

Once the most respected positions in America, it has now been trashed, from inside. Just look at the KMC posts, you will understand.

After over 30 years in ministry, I have come to recognize that many pastors best tool is slander and attacks.

That being a "master manipulator, "a super salesman" and "an awesome orator" has taken the place of the Anointing of the Living God.

(Math 12:36 "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every word they have spoken."

God help us all

As usual Lord, praying for the unanointed who have a title and maybe a degree but are not regenerate.


Rex Ray said...

Is this a confession of faith? “The office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

Since it is in the BFM 2000, it must be a confession of faith or it wouldn’t be there. Right?

Has it been imposed on any churches in the SBC? Yes, over and over. The Baptist Standard reported a professor working on a SBC mission’s project overseas was offered a positing to teach at a school if the SBC would give him a recommendation. His recommendation was denied because while he was overseas, the church he was a member of, called a woman for their pastor.

Is the SBC a religious authority? Yes.


I am not a lawyer, but how much ‘wiggle room’ can two conflicting statements have? I would like to hear a resolution presented to the SBC to remove one of these opposing statements for clarity.

You know which one I’d want to get the ax.

Steve said...

While I always applaud Missionaries who work hands-on with the lost, does Mr. Masters have any idea how fatuously self-important that "Southern Baptist Geneva" tag makes him look?
It reminds me of characters created by Voltaire.

Anonymous said...

I've found a militant atheist if you want to try and help him; he's at:

GBWY, James

Pamela said...

WOW now some on here are calling each other jackasses and punks. I think this is a first since reading this blog where the discussion has gone to the gutter. How sad that the lowly, second class worthless (gasp) female is to blame. UGH. Can there not be a civil discussion without the juvenile name calling???? Are we women that disgusting that it provokes some to lash out and call others names???? Amazing examples of Christian love.

Bob Cleveland said...


I too, with Paul B., am offended at K.M.C.'s remark. And I dare say I've spent a LOT more time around you than K. has.

It's axiomatic that people who ARE part of a problem, seldom SEE the problem.


Paul Burleson said...


It is obvious to me that, apart from the Red Sox thing, you are one sharp ccokie. :)

Rex Ray said...

Robert Masters,
I’ve read your many comments, and you asked: “What part of ‘I do not permit a women to teach’ do you not understand…?”

Your ‘typo’ (a women) makes more sense than your interpretation. What I mean by that is: What part of “I” do you not understand?

“I” is NOT God. Paul did not say God revealed his statement to him. He used HIS human reasoning; shown by the next two verses: (seniority, and sin.)

Seniority and sin makes as much sense as the cow jumped over the moon. Eve was deceived into sinning, while Adam sinned without being deceived. Did that make her a bigger sinner than Adam and she can’t teach him anything?

That’s as crazy as saying, “Eve should be the boss because Adam was made from dirt while she was made from superior dirt.”

Gram said...

what a nasty man, that k michael crowder.

Anonymous said...


You see my concern, and this is only an internet blog.

The absence of kindness does cause people's positions to harden.


Each person has to figure out for themselves what they think is the most effective route. If I had a simple answer, I would have a platform.

Sometimes people just can't be reached. Other times, they can.

I try and reflect on who in my life has been effective at helping me see the other side of things. Usually, it's people who love me and are patient. I think that we all recoil from more strident and "in your face" approaches when they are applied to us. If we react that way, our opponents probably do also.


Baptist Theologue (Mike Morris) said...

Some interesting quotes from past resolutions at SBC annual meetings:

1980 – “Be it finally RESOLVED, That this Convention, reaffirming the biblical role which stresses the equal worth but not always the sameness of function of women, does not endorse the Equal Rights Amendment.”

1984 – “WHEREAS, Women as well as men prayed and prophesied in public worship services (1 Cor. 11:2-16), and Priscilla joined her husband in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26), and women fulfilled special church service-ministries as exemplified by Phoebe whose work Paul tributes as that of a servant of the church (Rom. 16:1); and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures attest to God's delegated order of authority (God the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, man the head of woman, man and woman dependent one upon the other to the glory of God) distinguishing the roles of men and women in public prayer and prophecy (1 Cor. 11:2-5); and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures teach that women are not in public worship to assume a role of authority over men lest confusion reign in the local church (1 Cor. 14:33-36); and

WHEREAS, While Paul commends women and men alike in other roles of ministry and service (Titus 2:1-10), he excludes women from pastoral leadership (1 Tim. 2:12) to preserve a submission God requires because the man was first in creation and the woman was first in the Edenic fall (1 Tim. 2:13ff); and

WHEREAS, These Scriptures are not intended to stifle the creative contribution of men and women as co-workers in many roles of church service, both on distant mission fields and in domestic ministries, but imply that women and men are nonetheless divinely gifted for distinctive areas of evangelical engagement; and

WHEREAS, Women are held in high honor for their unique and significant contribution to the advancement of Christ's kingdom, and the building of godly homes should be esteemed for its vital contribution to developing personal Christian character and Christlike concern for others.

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we not decide concerns of Christians doctrine and practice by modern cultural, sociological, and ecclesiastical trends or by emotional factors; that we remind ourselves of the dearly bought Baptist principle of the final authority of Scripture in matters of faith and conduct; and that we encourage the service of women in all aspects of church life and work other than pastoral functions and leadership roles entailing ordination.”

Jim Paslay said...


The chaplain issue comes close to home for me. We had a lady in our church in Ft.Worth during my days in seminary. She wanted to be a chaplain in the women's prison there but needed to be ordained because the gov't said she had to. When we did further research, we realized that they really wanted a recommendation from our church. We were ready to give that, but the gov't insisted on ordination. We met as a church and voted not to ordain her to the gospel ministry. In my opinion we did the right thing. The gov't shouldn't be telling the church what to do in matters such as this in the first place. It was a very emotional situation and it caused division within the church.

I was a deacon at the time in this church and I was upset because the lady came from a prominent Baptist church in Ft.Worth that ordained women but she wanted to make it an issue in our church.

We need to make sure that the experience is compatible with Scripture and not Scripture being ignored or explained away to fit the experience.

Anonymous said...

"So I should not read Rebecca Groothuis because she is too invested in the outcome of her egalitarian writings! Please... sounds like your arguing for convictionless authors.
Iam convinced of the purpose and vision of Founders ministry that is why I write ..............."


Have they stopped teaching reading and logic at university? I said to read the other perspectives for balance and I was speaking of history when I said it.

You keep making huge leaps from this disagreement on a secondary doctrine to things such as not believing the flood happened. Those are HUGE leaps!

These leaps are logical fallacies and strawmen.

A few questions:

Do you believe that a woman or man can believe scripture is inerrant and that a woman can be an elder?

Do you think a woman who holds correct doctrine on the essentials and is a pastor, is saved?

From the SB Kingdom of Heaven,

Bob Cleveland said...

Did Paul ever tell Timothy not to let women teach?

From the guy who told the Corithians to throw out gross sinners from amongst them, an indication of what HE didn't do doesn't sound like much of a command, to me.

Now if you couple the very next statements saying A) Adam was born first; B) Eve was deceived but not Adam, and C) Women must learn in complete silence, and apply THEM to the modern church, well, at least you'll be consistent.

I, of course, would do that .. but my wife won't let me. :)

Unknown said...

So, Jim Paisley, do you think that only women from more "liberal" denominations should be chaplains in women's prisons? Or do you think that only men should be chaplains in women's prisons?

I know a woman who is a pastor in the Reformed church. She's a good, Godly woman, and I have no doubt that she was called to be a pastor.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe that this is a secondary issue. I would break fellowship over this issue. I have stated that all over the internet.

As to your first i dont believe a women can be an elder.

Yes such a women could be saved but she would not have correct doctrine.

From Nashville Tennessee
Robert I Masters

Alan Stoddard said...


I never met a racial discussion I didn't like...I think.

Commenting on race is tough.

Crowder, you should have wrote what you really were thinking (I assume what you were thinking). Reconciling civil rights with women in ministry is not as easy as everyone thinks, regardless of the side you are on.

I do know Dwight McKissic personally and professionally. I would lay my life down for him. He's my pastor, so yes there's loyalty involved (I'm white by the way). But let me say this. On a personal level, I have had the pleasure of watching him deal with race. And on that issue he and I are similar. We are "nobody's boy." What I know is this. I've seen Dwight tell black people that racism is wrong regardless of your color. Now to do that takes guts "my friends." Not many black pastors that I've heard do that. And I already know VERY few of you pastors, if any, have preached on race in your church. And it's the number one issue out there, just waiting for you to address.

So, to say he pulled the race card?

1. It's not only blacks who pull it and play it. I'll play it on anyone, any color to bring about understanding and conversation. (See my post on Playing the Race Card)

2. Dwight is not prone to pull and play the race card. If he does, he plays it both ways and has every right to do it if it's a legitimate play. And for this context, it's not out of the ballpark. It's a legitimate play and whites don't like it or know how to handle it.

Whites are too quick to "dismiss" racial issues (and other issues) because they want to not address it. But we must stop that. We must engage in the race discussion. We sat the civil rights movement out. Let's not sit this one out. The climate is ripe for reconciliation.

Having said that, I would go a little easy on Crowder ya'll. His approach was a crash, but he will survive. I don't know him from Abel. But his unfortunate wording and accusation can happen to all of us. What is it that you say when you hear Jeremiah Wright? When no one else is listening? Be careful.

Love all of you. We are treading in unchartered waters. And that's a good thing. Keep moving.

John Daly said...

I asked my grandfather what he would do if I ever dated a Black girl when I was in high school. He said he would disown me. Well I did anyway and he eventually was fine with it. I'm afraid St. Louis has always been and continues to be racially divided. It's so bad that I can name certain streets and the other person knows right away if it's a black or white neighborhood.

Not only would I like to see us (Christians) lead the way in racial harmony but how about leading the way in making sure that people actually have the chance to live? Is it just me or have we become deathly silent on the life issue with just some lip service every January on National Right to Life Day?

I grow weary of having the spine of a jelly fish when it comes to these things. If you ever listen to Piper's series on "Killing Sin," he talks about guys like William Wilberforce, who ate and drank activities of good deeds for His Savior. Who fought for the abolition of the slave trade in England his whole adult life and had several other noble causes. Who would recite Psalm 119 from memory as he walked to Parliment each day. Man, I want to be one of those! A person who gets up and goes to bed dreaming (and doing) deeds of righteousness for my God. Not with the hopes of being justified but because He has already justified me.

So if you have a God honoring, Christ exalting passion that burns inside of you, then friend, you best be about your Father's business. Be the leader in your congregation in racial harmony, be the only person who dares to kneel at the gates of an abortion clinic, leave tracts at the grocery store, adopt a foster child, whatever it is He will equip you for. And do it all as worship and you will be most satisfied. Amen?

Tom Parker said...

Jim Paslay:

You make it sound like it was the woman's fault. I wonder how much longer women will put up with what is going on?

Only By His Grace said...

People who do not think that race prejudice is alive and well need to just pay attention to what goes on around them.

A black family lives on the corner in our housing additon. Two years ago, they woke up to find that someone during the night burned KKK across their front yard. Since the grass is deep plush Oklahoma Bermuda, the KKK stayed in his yard all winter and early spring.

One year ago I was playing golf in Moore just north of Norman and South of OKC. When we came to the sixth green someone had cut KKK and the Nazi Cross in the green probably using a machete. The cuts were about three inches deep four inches wide in the green.

I can give you other examples of painted cars, painted shcools, church buildings, brick walls and on we could go. I have friends on staff in Northeast Texas, the Beaumont area, they can tell you recent stories, and then there is the Durant area and..

Give me a break. Racism has been in this country since the Mayflower landed with the first black slave and will be here until the Lord returns.

Phil in Norman.

Lin said...

"I think that we all recoil from more strident and "in your face" approaches when they are applied to us. If we react that way, our opponents probably do also."

That is also vague. Can you give an example of what is 'in your face' and where you see this happening and by whom?

Is it 'in your face' to go beyond the BF&M by our leadership? Is it 'in your face' to blog about just that?

Vague and general are never helpful. What is 'in your face' to one person may be normal communication to another.

My old training principles are kicking in, I'm afraid. Vague corrections or admonishments never work, either.

I am afraid I still do not know exactly what or to whom you are trying to communicate here.

Some specifics would be very helpful.

Anonymous said...

We need to get back to the topic at hand

From the land of the big orange
Robert i Masters

Alan Stoddard said...

Go anonymous...sweep it under the rug....I mean keep us on topic.

I don't think that's the proper response.

There comes a time when you have to say enough is enough. Race is the biggest, toughest topic in America right now, and you want to get back on topic?

We are center mass!

BB said...

Wade, you asked:

"If there is success in changing the views of the SBC toward women, and if women - like yourself - no longer feel 'condemned' for fulfilling their calling, would you consider returning to the Southern Baptist Convention and represent us in the medical chaplaincy field?"

It's too late for me. I've come too far, endured too much and just can't turn back now. I'm working on letting go of the hurt and pain and losing any lingering, festering vestiges of bitterness. But I still cheer you all on and pray for your daughters and sisters.


Anonymous said...


I am not trying to identify any persons in particular.

I think that we all have a desire to persuade other people to see things the way we see them, or the way they ought to be.

The point of my comment is to affirm general principles in communication and persuasion.

I think that you hit upon it well when you mentioned that what is "in your face" may be normal to some people.

So, the concept should be for one to know what the ultimate goal is, to understand the audience (whether they respond well to "in your face" methods or something more subtle) and to develop the best way to communicate to that audience.

We are often careful to consider how we approach non-Christians, especially those from other cultures because we want to present the Gospel effectively and in a non-offensive way.

But it is odd when we deal with Christians how quickly we can forget this lesson and give little consideration to effective presentation that is designed to really win someone over. Instead, we often believe that as long as we played "Nathan the prophet" we're done. Whew! Got that off my chest. Now whose the next person I can unload on.

Those are the type of questions and issues that require contemplation and wisdom.

I am not writing this to point at any particular people, other than myself. But I believe the principles are good ones.


Unknown said...

I'm beginning to wonder if the only women the SBC wants are the married or still living with their parents kind, who can just ask their fathers or husbands when they have "church questions", and are content to just do the chuch dinners and teach children.

I am married, but my husband doesn't attend church very much; my father's gone now but was not a church goer when he was alive; and I have never been very good at cooking or with children. Kind of makes me wonder.

Lin said...

"I am not writing this to point at any particular people, other than myself. But I believe the principles are good ones."

Thanks for the explanation, Louis. Following your comments here for while and I guess I am still not sure where you are coming from. I get the impression from one post in another thread here that you felt that dissention did not work and perhaps felt that Wade's blog was a stumbling block to change.

But I am only reading between the lines and was hoping you would be more specific as to if you felt this blog was 'in your face' or perhaps some of the comments? Depending on which one-- is where I was coming from when I said we can all see things very differently.

I am not sure we would have the information on what is going on and the deep problems within the SBC without this blog and others. More and open communication is a good thing. As Christians, we should NOT fear it. We should welcome it.

Blessings to you

truth, not religion said...

Brother Allen, you said

"Race is the biggest, toughest topic in America right now, and you want to get back on topic?"

You are truly entitled to you opinion, and others to theirs.

I was raised in an area with no black people but with tens of thousands of American Indians, there was a lot of race problems but the core problem in all races is sin.

Our ministry is involved in helping with food, clothing, medical supplies etc overses, world hunger is caused buy sin.

Yes, race is a problem but the race problem is rooted in sin. If we will do as WADE IS TEACHING, that is, CARRY THE GOSPEL TO THE WORLD, then the resulting lack of sin would address the race problem.


So, yes, getting back on message for WADE'S BLOG is a good thing.

live in peace

Anonymous said...

Robert I Masters,

You said "So I see the tightening of Theological parameters as a wonderful return to the Fidelity of Scripture. Lets praise God for this movement of His Spirit."

I think it can be pretty easy to say this as long as one is still "in".

I also think it can be somewhat easy to wax eloquent about what it would be like if the tightening ever squeezed one "out".

However, I think there is a big difference between the theoretical and the concrete.



P.S. A Question to Answer for Yourself: If the Wade Coalition, if you will, ever left the SBC, do you think you would be more or less vulnerable as a Calvinist?

Rex Ray said...

Robert Masters,
If you want to get back to the topic, why don’t you answer my question? I’ll repeat it:

“What part of “I” do you not understand?

Alan Stoddard said...

Truth, not relgion,

I was being sarcastic. I'm not trying to avoid the topic of women in ministry. Race was introduced as an angle related to the recent posts by Wade on women.

I'm excited your church is doing something. I agree with your statement on sin being the core problem. Not sure about how far we have come by doing " WADE IS TEACHING, that is, CARRY THE GOSPEL TO THE WORLD, then the resulting lack of sin would address the race problem." That true and good in theory.

I agree of course with the Scripture to do this. Yet we've been doing this in America for a long time, and look where it's got us?

I don't believe in female senior pastors. But I also know that SWBTS has gone back to the 50s in style. You don't have to do women in ministry like they do to be conservative. Ask Ken Hemphill! Would you consider him a conservative? Of course. Yet he knew Scripture left room for a woman to serve under authority, yet with freedom on the SWBTS faculty.

I'm not for oppressing women just because they are women. I don't think Scripture does that.

And oppression is the link with race. Racism and genderism may not be exactly alike, but they are similar in some ways.

I'm going to go get on topic...I mean go to bed. Later.

Anonymous said...

It is now midnight and I am home and settled in and looking over this thread. I am not a nasty man. I did not post in anger, nor were my comments meant to be in malice. (Save the first one maybe, but that was not so much directed at Wade as it was to a couple followers of mammon in Missouri.

Anyway, my email inbox had several emails asking me to apologize and several in complete even told me to "keep it up." I of course have nothing to keep up, nor is any of this a huge concern for me at the moment. I am content in my convictions, the Holy Spirit is the guide of my conscience and the Word of God alone is the means by which I acquire the truth of God and Christian living. I absolutely apologize to all, including Wade, and Paul, and specifically Dwight for my choice of words. I do not, however, apologize for the intent of my question. Before I go any further, it should be noted that I am in fact NOT a racist. (In that the negative connotation would put me) But I am a public observer of prominent African-American males who seek to use the issue as a ladder to success. Witness here supports the proposition that Mr. McKissic is not in that class. But the proposition is still a valid one (minus my improper use of the word "always").

So, here is why “I” am offended. I am offended, Mr. McKissic, because you place my complementarian view in the same boat as the view of racism. Have you thrown out your so cherished sole competency? Or rather are you throwing out my right to it?

Yes, comparing biblical gender roles to racism IS a faulty analogy.

You would do better sir to separate the two for this discussion within the SBC.

The fact that we are even discussing it makes us liberal in most Baptist circles. (That is those to the right of the SBC) Are you prepared to place ALL Baptists in the same boat with the SBC? Let us not forget history and those bad things which our fathers did, but let us not punish the sons to the nth generation. No one demeans women except for those who demean women. Holding to biblical gender roles for women is not as you say.


PS: Delete my posts or not--I have a copy. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, nor my expressions (crude as they may sometimes be) of it as I am sometimes not as perfect as I would like to be. If I post it, may it be read by all for generations to come! And may it be said that I stood up to he who is called velvet and steel…


Debbie Kaufman said...

The race issue and women are close enough that if you look in history to the Civil rights movement, Southern Baptists women were involved in this movement, because they felt they could relate to it.

Tom Parker said...


You think you are helping the cause of Christ; you are hurting it!! One day you will be ashamed.

Paul Burleson said...


Apology accepted. A few personal words are in order, I believe, but those will be private to you.


Rex Ray said...

Am I writing with invisible ink? This post is about “Those Who Make the BFM Say What it Doesn’t.”
Maybe I haven’t made it clear. I’ll try to do better.

Why has no one replied to my quoting the BFM 2000: “BAPTIST DENY THE RIGHT OF ANY SECULAR OR RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A CONFESSION OF FAITH UPON A CHURCH OR BODY OF CHURCHES.” (I’ll refer to this statement from here on as ‘Good’)

1. The ‘Good’ of the BFM 2000 is made a fool by imposing on all our churches: “The office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” (I’ll refer to this statement from here on as ‘Hypocrite’)


I know Wade believes ‘Hypocrite’ should never have been added to the BFM 1963, and is showing how ‘Hypocrite’ has been abused to make women second class Christians.

Why can’t we get to the root of the problem and eliminate ‘Hypocrite’?

I’ll answer my own question: If we removed ‘Hypocrite’, it would show C/R leaders made a mistake and their pride can’t admit that.

Rex Ray said...

Besides their pride, maybe it was their plan all along to make ‘Hypocrite’ a means of putting women in ‘their place’ as THEY interpret Scripture.

Anonymous said...

Most of you guys say you don't think people should be considered less than human because of the color of their skin. But you still think it's ok to consider some less than human because of the shape of their skin.

If you are so literal about women not teaching or having authority over men (I Timothy 2:12) did you cause your wife to sin by giving her a gold ring? (I Timothy 2:9). I guess it's ok for you to wear a wedding ring, since it only says women shouldn't wear gold. Context.

There are things in the Bible that are for all time and things that were valid only for situations of that time. Women were told to cover their heads when they prayed or prophesied. You don't care whether they cover their heads (or have short hair, though that is also condemned) but you don't want them to pray or prophesy!

Paul also talks about greeting the brethren with a holy kiss, but I'd really be surprised if you did that.

Women are human, whether you like it or not. Jesus sent women to tell the disciples he was risen. An important message, wouldn't you say? Was he wrong? The male disciples didn't believe them, and you probably wouldn't have either.

Susie said...

Benji Ramsaur,

You ask a question that deserves an answer from people who care about the SBC. I may make a post of your question one day in the future for I think people who hold to particular 'views' - even those that I may not agree with - would be far more vulnerable if those who think like we do regarding cooperation left the convention. said...

K Michael,

Your posts are not being deleted. Thanks for your apology. I would encourage you, however, to realize some of the things being said by 'some' (not all) complementarians will invite comparisons to SBC racism of the past. Get used to it. If you are following your 'Biblical' convictions, then these comparisons should not sway you. I would just ask you to pause for a moment or two when you are listening to others with a different view on women and ask yourself if they are seeking to establish their view on Scripture. Not every egalitarian is a liberal - just like not every complementarian is a racist. The concern we ought to have is 'are people basing their views on a high view of Scripture and a desire to understand it.'

Anonymous said...

"The race issue and women are close enough..."


Close only counts in...

I do not seem to have much wisdom to impart here lately but let me say this: Equating the view held by many that gender roles are separate and specific to the view of racism is highly offensive to those good and sincere followers of Christ (many many women included) who have chosen a biblical interpretation which cannot be considered out of the mainstream, nor inconsistent with the early church fathers, nor the writings of the Apostles, nor extant tradition. The egalitarian viewpoint has been argued quite well for many years without equating it to racism. I am simply saying that this is bad precedent to set. Philosophers are known as "thinkers" precisely because they think through all of the outcomes of their propositions before they come to their conclusions. I would urge you to think through the outcome of demonizing the complementarian whose sole competency dictates a view different than your own.


John Daly said...

There are only two "races" that concern me. Those who have had their sins pardoned and those who will have their sins punished and I want those in the latter group to join those of us in the former.

Pamela said...

I say this humbly. I do not understand how people can say that racism and gender bias are not similar. At least it appears that some that commented took offense to the race issue being brought up.

I am speaking as a black female. I have seen bias and prejudice from both angles. The bottom line is this. I did not choose my race nor my gender. These were given to me by the Lord. He saw fit to have me created as a black female. He is pleased with how I was made.

Preventing someone from progress just because of a status of a person that they did not choose is wrong. Unfortunately in both instances the Bible was used as a whipping post to beat those (in some cases literally) into submission to the controllers. For me there is no difference. The sad thing for me is that in both scenarios the only time I have experienced racial prejudice and witnessed gender bias was within the body of Christ. I would also say that people should not be surprised that racism is brought up in the same conversation as gender bias. Both sins have the root of pride. To me there is no difference. I doubt that the Lord sees any difference. The issue is the heart motivation.

I made my decision long ago. I will not participate not give my monies to any group that does not value me like the Lord does. I would be a fool to support such ungodly practices. I alone will be held accountable for how I stood for right. I could care less what others think about it. More and more women are leaving groups that refuse to accept them as equals AS JESUS DOES. To dare to say that the Bible supports subordinate roles for women I feel will be dangerous in the days to come.

I am sincerely trying to follow the word and what I truly feel the Holy Spirit is leading me to do. I will not submit myself to anything or anyone that goes against what I feel the Lord is telling me to do. This is not exclusively an issue with the SBC. This is an issue that is severely hindering the progress of reaching others for Christ and making disciples. If we cannot get past issues that are basic to a changed life in Christ our efforts will be in vain.

I know that others will not agree with what I'm saying. I just ask that no one calls me names. It has not happened to me yet but unfortunately I started to see this in some posts. I'm glad the Lord does not treat us like that.

Pamela said...

nativevermonter, I truly believe your heart is in the right place. Unfortunately too many leaders do not feel like you do. It is having a negative impact on the body of Christ needlessly.

Rev. said...

I don't want to sound either like the PC crowd or like a whiner, but I find relating that picture of the Muslim women with this post offensive. The Roman Catholic pic with the last one, I can live with, because you are dealing with Christendom at that point. When Christians begin labeling other Christians as Muslims, either explicitly (e.g., Ergun Caner) or implicitly (i.e., this post/ photo), things have gone too far. Islamists have nothing whatsoever to do with caring for Christ or His Kingdom. Islamists call for the rape of non-Muslim women and the murder of non-Muslim women and men and children. They are persecuting brothers and sisters in Christ around the globe. We as Evangelical Christians may discriminate against each other at times, but never have we called for the murder and rape and imprisonment and physical assault of others - nor shall we ever do so.

Badly done.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray,
I believe that ALL of Scripture is inspired by God. Even Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Please do not Cut and Paste the BIBLE.

The same thing with the whole Red Letter Christian movement. Putting Paul against Jesus

From Nashville Tennessee
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

My heritage and history is as an mk in a non-Southern Baptist evangelical mission. Have you ever heard of Grattan Guiness the evangelist? Maybe the Livingston Inland Mission? That is the organization my parents were with in Papua, Indonesia.
I bring that point up because I am not really concerned if the SBC kicks out all the Calvinist. I would shake the sand off my sandals and move on to other Bible Churches. My church here in Nashville is a evangelistic, missional, doctrines of Grace believing, Southern Baptist church with several SBC leaders in leadership. I dont see texas taking over tennessee!Ben Cole analogy!!!!

From Al Gores city
Robert I Masters

Paul Burleson said...


Well spoken. Thank you for an insightful comment. This is not my blog so I should/will not answer every comment as that would be inappropriate from my personal perspective. But, I am compelled to respond to yours. I hear a genuine Lordship of Christ atmosphere in your words. I also hear a belief in and commitment to the integrity of the scriptures as a foundation to your convictions.

I respect your decisions born out of those convictions and would say that you have expressed my own heart as to Kingdom living.

You can tell that I happen to agree with 'what' you've said, but had I not, I would agree with the 'way' you've said it.

I'm privilaged to hear the heart of my little sister in Christ. [I call you 'little sister' because you are much younger than am I and how I know that is EVERYONE is much younger than am I. :)]

You've given me a gift of insight into your heart and life and I thank you for that gift.

Anonymous said...


The picture's fine, but do you think it's also OK to say uninformed things about the Catholic Church.

I think both the Catholic and Muslim references would have been better left off these two posts.

I have a theory that most of the Protestant side suffers deeply from Pope envy, and have a real need for an emotional breakthrough in this regard. You know of course, “only that which is acknowledged can be healed”.


Anonymous said...

"I have a theory that most of the Protestant side suffers deeply from Pope envy, and have a real need for an emotional breakthrough in this regard. "

Newman, I had to laugh at 'Pope envy'. I agree with you! But not for the reason you think. But we certainly are creating little popes in the SBC. We have many young men who revere these little popes and hang on their every word, book, article, sermon, etc.

Newman, don't forget this is a Baptist oriented blog and as such many of us still believe explicitly in the Holy Priesthood. Even though our little popes do not. :o)


Anonymous said...



I think that this blog and others are good ways for some of us to dialogue, and my comments should not be taken as a call to restrict or shut down blogs.

Blessings to you, too. Hope the meet you sometime.


Rex Ray said...

Robert Masters,
I agree with you that ALL Scripture is inspired by God.

The definition of Scripture is TRUTH. (Not the lies of Satan and men, their ignorance, prejudices, and stupidity.)

Would you agree the Bible is divided into truth and untruth?

Both BFM 1963 and BFM 2000 have “We believe the Bible has…truth, without any mixture of error for its matter.”

Do you know what that means?

Michael Whitehead, presiding lawyer for the SBC, explained, “That means the truth of the Bible is true and the untruth of the Bible is untrue. That is why we added ‘and that all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy’.”

I agree with his explanation; do you?

If you don’t, would you explain …”without any mixture of error for its matter.”

What’s this thing you call “Red Letter Christian movement.”
I thought red letters were words Jesus said.
And was is this “Do not Cut and Paste the Bible” request? Is that a new rule fundamentalist have issued?

Thanks for finally replying.
How about confronting the BFM 2000 doing what it said it would not do?

From Bonham, Texas

Anonymous said...

"Pope envy" -- buwaahaaaahaaaaaa!

Tell it to the Orthodox (who have good arguments that the Catholics are the offshoot group).

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray,
No I do not agree that the Bible is divided into Truth and UnTruth. The Bible is only Truth.

As to Michael Whitehead,s quote..I have no idea or understanding of the context. You better ask him.

The Red Letter Christian movement are those christians who emphasize Christ teachings or words over against other authors or apostles. In this context they might say that Jesus never told a women not to teach in the church but Paul did;so by inference, we can say Jesus words overrule Paul.

Paul was speaking with divine authority as inspired by God, to Timothy, for all generations. Not as; I would do this but your free to go your own way.

Fundamentalist rules: better ask a fundamentalist I dont know too many in the SBC.Reformed Baptist is my tagline.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

"No I do not agree that the Bible is divided into Truth and UnTruth. The Bible is only Truth."

Would polygamy be considered a sin?


Anonymous said...

To K. Michael Crowder,

If anyone understands where you are coming from in noting that an African-American pastor "played the race card" (as I believe you put it), it is I.

I am from Alabama and am 55 years old--which means I am plenty old enough to remember segregated water fountains, restrooms, restaurants, and all. My father was a small town police chief, and to "learn how to handle demonstrators" the city sent him to Selma, Montgomery, and Birmingham to learn from Police Commissioner "Bull" Conner, Sheriff Mac Sim Butler, and whoever was in Selma (I don't remember his name). I heard George Wallace bock the school house door and give his "segregation today, tomorrow, forever" speech, I heard about "outside agitators" (meaning blacks (I didn't call them that then) and sorry whites from "up north" come down and stir up "our" local blacks, and I was as against John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King as any white Southern kid of the time could be (at least without connecting to the KKK). So I understand where you are coming from.

But you know something K. Michael? I wasn't a Christian back then, and my family was unchurched. When I came to Christ, I came to realize that there is neither black nor white, male or female in Christ. And I came to realize the prejudice that African-Americans face, both in overt ways (like segregation, or the highest ranking African-American at SBC Hqtrs in Nashville being the janitor), and in subtle ways (everything from being accused of "playing the race card" to the lack of role models and representatives in television, movies, print media, and even on computers). You, sir, should be ashamed of this accusation. You know the words of Christ, I pray that you develop the sensitivity of Christ so that you can put forward your own words which reflect credit on Him; these do not. I hope some day that you have the privledge--and I mean this sincerely--of pastoring a church with an ethnically and racially diverse congregation, as do I. It is an humbling and rewarding experience. Someone else mentioned that if you had to walk in Dr. McKissic's shoes--or the shoes of any African-American man in America--you would no doubt develop a different attitude. May God bless you with that.

John Fariss

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray,
Rick Warren did that copy and paste thing with different versions of the Bible in the "Purpose Driven Life".
It was wrong!

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Tom Parker said...

Robert M:

Are you jealous of Rick Warren? I believe the Lord has used him in a mighty way!!

not from the SB Geneva

Anonymous said...

"Are you jealous of Rick Warren? I believe the Lord has used him in a mighty way!!"

You need to trust me when I tell you that Rick Warren allows no disagreement, either. No dissenters are allowed with his 'vision' and plans.

Anonymous said...

Tom Parker,
Not jealous at all. His calling is not my calling.
His reformation is not my idea of reformation either!
Founders vision would be more inline with what i believe is healthy Biblical growth.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Rev. said...

I disagree, obviously. I DON'T think "the picture's fine."

Is it okay to say uninformed things about the Roman Catholic Church? Such as what? It is fair to say that the Roman church is generally authoritarian/ hierarchial whereas most Baptists are democratic and don't care for hierarchies.

Newman, your line, "Most of the Protestant side suffers deeply from Pope envy, and have a real need for an emotional breakthrough in this regard," was a classic! Thanks for the grins! I'm going to go listen to the Reformation Polka now...

'Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation -
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!'

Anonymous said...


Are you an employee of any of the SBC entities?

John Poole said...


It’s OK that you don’t buy into my theory about Pope envy. If you found some humor in it, well, that’s of some value.

I know of a fellow who really believes that Elvis lives and owns an extermination business somewhere in Arkansas. Now everyone know that he holds a crazy notion, but also knows he’s free to hold it. I think that’s pretty much in line with the Orthodox “crazy” notion.


I think I really like you. But you do need to settle down a little bit regarding this reformation thing. The Catholic’s got reformed about 450 years ago. Too bad the Protestants of that time were too busy fighting each other to notice.

We rest on different foundations, Catholics on a hierarchical system, Baptists on something different that I don’t think anyone really understands. Look at your brief history and all the conflicts, splits and disagreements. Look at these last few posts. I respect your high regard for a principle, the problem, as see it, is that this principle hasn’t been realized in any consistent material way, where the Catholic Church has functioned for centuries in harmony of principle and function.

I’m going to watch some basketball now. I’m rooting for Kansas to go the distance.


Rev. said...

I think we would probably enjoy a conversation over a cup of coffee, but I don't think the RCC ever reformed. If it had, Trent would be revoked. ;)

As far as the whole "harmony in the RCC" deal, you know as well as I do that the RCC has its own politics and internal spats. Lot of folks in the RCC still bickering over Vatican II, for example. You all just have better PR because of your vast organizational hierarchy. :p

Sola Gratia!

John Poole said...


Coffee would be good, but I'm Catholic and was thinking of something a little stronger



Anonymous said...

By the way:


and, (2)

Can’t find enough of Dr. Patterson’s personal Scripture interpretation in any year’s version of the BFM statements to justify the actions in regard to Dr. Klouda. Someone help me out?

Anonymous said...



and, (2)

Anonymous said...

No I am not an employee of any SBC entity.

From the SBC Geneva
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

John Fariss,

Forgive me, but I sense a great deal of emotionalism in your tone. The logic that allows the issue of gender roles and racial discrimination can be applied to ANY sin. Homosexuality, polygamy, those who prefer to worship apart from the church, nudists, divorce, fornication, bestiality, etc, etc, etc. Can you justify a logic and reason which demonizes those who oppose and remain set apart from those who commit any manner of sins? Female pastors are living in disobedience to our Lord and to the explicit commands of Scripture. Holding to that view is a matter of interpretation and not liken to racism. Here is the logic: assuming the egalitarian viewpoint is biblically correct, then the Complementarian is not guilty of gender discrimination, he is guilty of bad interpretation. Assuming the Complementarian viewpoint is biblically correct, then the female pastor is not only guilty of bad interpretation, she is also guilty of a sin of commission.
Let’s play suppositions for a moment (please, please…..everyone come and play!)
Suppose with me for one moment that 1 Timothy 3:7 instead read this way: “Moreover he must have a [penis given to him by God from birth] lest [the female think she desires the good thing which is the office of Bishop, she will be found lacking of that which she doth not possess and be found unworthy of the calling].” Assume it said that. Then assume that one held to the Complementarian viewpoint. Would that person still be discriminating against women?
Please someone answer this most important question.

Rex Ray said...

Robert Masters,
You said, “ Rick Warren did that copy and paste thing with different versions of the Bible in the ‘Purpose Driven Life’. It was wrong!”

Am I supposed to take your word that it’s wrong? Are you the pope? You’re still making statements without giving any reasons for your opinion.

I went to the last BGCT Convention to ‘fight’, but after hearing Warren preach for over an hour, I wanted to praise God and be a witness. I haven’t read his book, but if it’s anything like his preaching no wonder it holds the record for the number of books sold. It sounds like you feel more important by criticizing success.

You said, “No I do not agree that the Bible is divided into Truth and UnTruth. The Bible is only Truth.”

Even ‘spell check’ says your statement is wrong. We’re taught in the kindred garden all the Bible is true. Maybe you have that knowledge repeated 50 years or whatever.

Would you agree there are a thousand lies or more in the Bible? The devil said, “You will not die” for the first lie Cain denied knowing where his murdered brother was. Moses told three lies explaining to the people why he couldn’t go to the promise land. Christian Pharisees said you must be circumcised to be saved. Peter said God would be corrected if a burden was put on the Gentiles, but James said it was the Holy Spirit’s decision to put a small burden on the Gentiles. (Acts 15:28 Holman)

Because these lies are reported in truth does NOT make them truth. You think I’m splitting hairs? No, you’re the one splitting hairs to keep your heroic “The Bible is only Truth.”

I will repeat: The Bible contains Truth and the Bible contains Untruth.

Your saying you do not understand Michael Whitehead is a cop-out…I asked you to explain the BFM: “…truth without any mixture of error.”

Thanks for explaining the ‘Red Letter Christian movement’.
Since Jesus used a woman to teach his disciples, I believe that takes precedence over Paul’s not letting women teach men. Hurray for the Red Letter.

You said you don’t know many fundamentalist in the SBC. How about our vice president? On June 16, 2000, I wrote in the Baptist Standard:

“Should a ‘think tank’ replace the Holy Spirit in teaching Scripture? Priesthood of each Christian is Baptist belief. They are making cobwebs that snare trusting people. We need to vote the spiders out of office. They twist Scripture that makes husband and wife a beautiful partnership into a pecking order. Now they say, ‘Scripture cannot be set against Scripture.’ Does that mean other Scripture cannot be used to prove their interpretation wrong? That road leads to a pope. Those that make ‘inerrancy’ their God will scream with Jim Richards (11-18-98) ‘Those who depart theologically will be identified and called to repent.’ Sounds like their refusal to know truth has erased any love for their brother and they’d like an Inquisition to deal with heretics.”

Robert, I can see the handwriting on the wall…you’ll not reply to all these points.

PS: I hope my comment is not located close to Crowder’s comment.

Rex Ray said...

Ahaaaaaaaaaa! said...

K Michael,

I never dreamed we would come to the absurd activity of debating hypothetical passages of Scripture.

You are making assumptions and building prohibitions on them. The same thing happened with slavery. The Bible does not prohibit slavery and since some biblical passages simply told masters how to treat their slaves, old time Southern Baptists 'assumed' slavery was of God. So too, since the 'he' in I Timothy 3:7 speaks of a male, some 'assume' that women are 'prohibited.'

People always ought to be careful building doctrine on assumptions.

Anonymous said...

Susie asked this question earlier:

1 Timothy 2:12 has the prohibition against women teaching or having authority over men. 1 Timothy 2:9 says women should not wear gold (Is silver ok?) or pearls or have braided hair. 1 Timothy 2:8 says men should lift up holy hands in prayer without anger or disputing. Which are cultural and which are for all time?

This is an earnest question that I have asked for years now - I haven't seen anyone here address this question...any takers???

Michael A. Jordan
Axton, Virginia

Rex Ray said...

In my opinion, none of the above are for all time.

I thought Michael's comment should not have been expressed in such a crude manner. said...

Michael Jordan,

All of them are cultural and time specific - that church - that time - that occasion. In addition, the phrase "I forbid a woman to teach or have authority over men" is "I forbid that woman to teach or have authority over men."

For those who wish to say it is NOT cultural, then ask them why they allow the wearing of jewelry - why they don't lift their hands in prayer - why they let their wives wear gold and pearls? said...

Michael Jordan,

Up for a little game of one on one?


Lin said...

"Forgive me, but I sense a great deal of emotionalism in your tone."

Michael, Many try to use this as the ultimate insult. I hear it quite a bit these days to dismiss any debate. What is ironic is that you, of all people, have displayed tons of emotion here. It is of a different sort: Vitriol, callousness and sarcasm yet each one is STILL an emotion.

One of the biggest misconceptions out there is that seeminly cool, logical people are not emotional. Guess what? Their "coolness" is most definitly an emotion just expressed differently. So really, what we are talking about are different expressions of emotions and which ones we think are valid. I cringed at 'criers', myself and had a hard relating with them until Christ circumsized my heart.

A Passion for Christ is an emotion. You do realize that Jesus wept?

Blessed are those that mourn
Blessed are the poor in spirit

Anonymous said...

KMC wrote:

"Female pastors are living in disobedience to our Lord.."

-Care to point out the words of Christ that forbid this?

Tom Parker said...


If KMC can't find it in the Bible he just writes it in in his mind. In his mind it was meant to be there and if it is not there, it must be there somewhere.

Anonymous said...

Dear K. Michael,

You are exactly right! There is emotionalism in my response. There is passion, there is hurt, and there is anger over what I percieve as your attitude. Why? Because it smells to high heaven of the sort of racist drivel I grew up with, espoused myself for too many years, and heard whispered in church after church that I served in my beloved South. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Risen Christ, addressing the seven churches in the Book of Revelation, say to be either hot or cold, but those who are lukewarm, He will spit out? Oh, and yes, this is closely related to my passion for Jesus Christ, so don't try to suggest it is misguided.

So you hit the nail exactly on the head. . . about percieving emotionalism in my comment. And with that, your accuracy fails. The rest of your comment not only makes no sense to me, it offends my sense of the sacredness of Scripture. I hope you will reconsider your words.

John Fariss

Steve said...

The tragedy of pervasive hate is how normal it starts feeling inside the man that hates. He goes to every place in his life and finds hate there because it indwells him. Every conflict or problem in his life calls out for hate, and it becomes the hammer that every problem is solved with.

For this to happpen to a truckdriver or teacher is sad enough; for it to happen to a so-called pastor is an absolute disaster. Sometime between now and when the satellite trucks roll up outside wherever the explosion takes place, perhaps the Prince of Peace will send a Nathan to minister to him.

Anonymous said...

You have all seriously gone off the deep end.

Please answer the question. If the Bible required that Pastors have a penis, then would it be liken to racism to hold to that view?

I firmly believe that Scripture implies that Pastors must have a penis. As to those who want some sort of proof text, I can only direct you to my latest blog entry:

I have sufficiently explained my position there. As for my discussion on Wade's blog, I am not really arguing the qualifications of a pastor so much as I am outraged that the issue is linked to racism.

Btw, emotionalism is not the arbitrary use of emotion. So, lin and John, your last replies to me were completely pointless. The context surrounding my use of the word emotionalism, as well as the general use of the word surrounding theological issues and biblical interpretation suggest that one uses emotion and not the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture. This is evident in the post by John to which I was referring.

My feelings toward women have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my interpretation of the explicit qualifications given by Paul for a pastor.


Tom Parker said...


You are a vulgar person!!

Pamela said...

Well KMC continue to be outraged because I and many others believe the issue of gender bias and racism are similar. This is an opinion and a serious observation from my experience and the experience of many over the decades. You have the right to disagree as a person created in the image of God. If you are truly outraged at the fact that people disagree with your view of this there is a genuine concern in my heart. People are still important to me even though I feel they may be wrong in how they view and approach things.

I would not have any friends if I was outraged every time one of the disagreed with me. Good Lord that is where the fun is for me. They provoke me to press forward, get in the Word, adjust or solidify my position. This is why I have grown to love reading blogs, especially those that relate to faith in Jesus Christ. It helps me to understand better people from other traditions.

I'm not SBC. However anyone that has accepted Christ as Lord is my brother and sister. I see that those in the SBC are going through an important struggle that will define through the word what they will stand for. This is an important battle that many denominations, fellowships and the like are going through these days. My sincere hope is that when things are hashed out that people will be more unified and going in the direction that the Lord wants them to go. I believe that probably everyone here sincerely wants to follow the Lord and not be in error. That is the desire of every true believer in Christ. The Bible says that those that seek Him will find Him.

I have sent this blog to members of my church because they became interested in your quest for truth according to God's word after I spoke with them about this. In fact I plan on sending it to another friend of mine before going to bed this evening.

Anonymous said...


Gender bias IS similar to racism. But a view which demands a male only pastorate is NOT gender bias. It is biblical.


Baptist Theologue (Mike Morris) said...

KMC, you should drop the vulgarity.

Wade, you said,

“The Bible does not prohibit slavery and since some biblical passages simply told masters how to treat their slaves, old time Southern Baptists 'assumed' slavery was of God. So too, since the 'he' in I Timothy 3:7 speaks of a male, some 'assume' that women are 'prohibited.'”

I hope that both of us can agree that although the Bible does not prohibit slavery in one particular verse, the principles taught in various places in the Bible can be utilized to present a convincing biblical condemnation of modern “white slavery,” the slavery in the South prior to the Civil War, and other forms of slavery.

Perhaps we cannot agree, however, about what the Bible teaches in regard to men leading women. Under hopefully “normal” circumstances (when the husband is a growing Christian and is not abusing his wife, etc.), I believe that the Bible teaches as a general principle that the husband is to be the top-ranking spiritual leader of his family (Ephesians 5:22-24, Titus 2:5). Similarly, I believe that the Bible teaches that qualified men are to be the top-ranking spiritual leaders in churches. The Bible consistently promotes male spiritual leadership in the two most important institutions on earth, the family and the church. Of course, “normal” circumstances are not always present in today’s families. My parents divorced when I was very young, and my mother reared me in a single-parent home and filled the role of the spiritual leader. Coaches, pastors, and other godly men provided needed spiritual leadership in my life as I went through the teenage years.

I think that Paul was remarkably consistent in his advocacy of male leadership in the church. For instance, he used the Greek word “aner” (ανηρ) rather than the generic “anthropos” (ανθρωπος) in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6. Kenneth Wuest commented on 1 Timothy 3:2:

“The word ‘man’ is not anthropos, the generic term for man, but aner, the term used of a male individual of the human race.”

Wuest, “The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament,” Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 53.

Elsewhere in 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul used the more generic “anthropos”:

1 Timothy 4:10 “the Savior of all men” (NASB)
Titus 2:11 “bringing salvation to all men”

Another issue that I have not seen discussed on your blog is the issue involving the word “hosautos” (ωσαυτως) in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 3:11, which is translated as “likewise.” This word indicates the introduction of a new category in a series. Thus, three categories are specified in the series in 1 Timothy 3:

1. “Overseer” – the husband of one wife, or a one-woman kind of man (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6)

2. (hosautos) “Deacons” – husbands of one wife, or one-woman kind of men (1 Timothy 3:8, 12)

3. (hosautos) “Women” – 1 Timothy 3:11

Paul did not specify a particular office for the women, but he did specify particular offices for men. Perhaps he was being intentionally vague. In his time, he was probably referring to widows over 60 years of age, each of which had been “the wife of one man,” or a one-man kind of woman (1 Timothy 5:9). These older widows were receiving church support and probably had understood responsibilities in the churches. In our time, 1 Timothy 3:11 opens the door for women to serve on church staffs, not as overseers (pastors) or deacons, but in roles in which they would not have spiritual leadership over men. For instance, my wife is a graduate of New Orleans Baptist Seminary (MRE). She has served on two different church staffs, and she has also served as an IMB missionary for ten years. At no time has she exercised spiritual leadership over men, and she has been comfortable with her roles.

Again, we probably disagree on these points, but I think consideration of the “aner/anthropos” and “hosautos” issues are worthwhile.

Lin said...

"The context surrounding my use of the word emotionalism, as well as the general use of the word surrounding theological issues and biblical interpretation suggest that one uses emotion and not the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture."

Michael, I think you have missed the point. And, I do not think there is anything 'Holy' about the opinions or Biblical interpretation you have communicated here. It grieves me that you call yourself a pastor.

There is no passage that prohibits women from being gifted by the Holy Spirit to prophesy and there are many who have had this scriptural truth illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

There are obvious contradictions to your interpretations of a few proof texts in the Holy Scriptures that too many want to ignore. I can certainly understand why so many want to ignore them.

I fear this has become more of a political issue for too many and a prideful one, too.

I know you cannot see it, but your insistence on using vulgarity to communicate your point is extremely 'emotional'. And you have even made our point for us by doing so. There is no mention of the word you have chosen in the few proof texts that are in question in scripture. As a matter of fact, the Greek proves that it is not limited to men.

Steve said...

Good words very well spoken, Pamela. I would dare say that, if every man dreaming of one day becoming a pastor in the SBC (Or currently pretending to be one) were so well spoken and so openly a Christian, the Southern Baptists would be further along in developing unity in bringing a risen Christ to a lost and dying world.

The paper-thin apologies or excuses for slavery in the old, bad days sound so eerily similar to the explanations for the subservience of women from some quarters that each of us must notice it. Some cannot imagine moderating their extra-Biblical views of this tradition, but I for one can admit when a tradition is a wrong one that should never have been passed down.

As some have said before, the fact that bringing down false traditions amounts to employment insurance - due to disqualification of half the human race - cannot be ignored.

Lin said...

"Another issue that I have not seen discussed on your blog is the issue involving the word “hosautos” (ωσαυτως) in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 3:11, which is translated as “likewise.” This word indicates the introduction of a new category in a series. "

I cannot see how that changes anything. If anything, aner would be used in verse 1 if it were only men because OF verse 2 and 11 which uses 'gune' and we almost always see aner and gune together when speaking of husband and wife.

But that is not the case. Verse 1 means ANYONE whosoever. Male or female.

The use of 'aner' in verse 2 makes perfect sense because there was no need for a similar prohibition on women because polyandry was not legal. And he was making a prohibition on husbands with more than one wife.

We know Phoebe was a real bonafide 'Deacon' (no matter how hard some try to not make it so) and the deacon has the same criteria: "husband of one wife". It is hard to get our western minds around the fact it was quite normal for men to have several wives in culture.

The fact that Phoebe was a real deacon makes the 'husband of one wife' a moot point. It cannot be the deciding factor that only men can be elders or deacons.

The point I am making here is not to just argue this but for people to see that there are legitimate interpretation differences that we should NOT divide over or make extra biblical rules over.


Lin said...

Michael, Just wanted to remind you that one of the qualifications of an elder is to be 'above reproach', of good behavior and 'not a brawler'.

Blessings to you

Anonymous said...


The Bible indeed prohibits what happened to Africans as they were shipped to American, England, and other countries and treated in an ungodly manner, staved, and hanged.

But then this has nothing to do with the Pastoral Qualifications.

As to the Greek not demanding that Paul’s subject in 1 Tim 3 be a male (with a p@@@s), any Greek professors want to chime in? I am but a lowly first year Greek student and struggling at that. But are we to say that Paul also advocated (vv. 4-5) that a woman is to "manage" the household? How does this fit with 1 Cor. 11:3?

No one is saying that God does not use women in a variety of ways. In my own church we have a woman who facilitates a discipleship training class with men and women. She does not act as a pastor, nor does she act in authority over men, but in my small church this is the only and best option, but I pray daily for God to strengthen the men in my church to be able to rise to the occasion.


I should note that I am NOT searching for truth on this matter. I have long found said truth and hold to it unequivocally.

Anonymous said...

"that a woman is to "manage" the household? How does this fit with 1 Cor. 11:3? "

Check out 1 Tim 5:14. The word for manage the house for the young widow is:


It is where we get the word: Despot. :o) It means 'rule over household'

1 Corin 11 is about headcoverings and the freedom to cover or not. (Everyone wants to make it about much more than it is)

The original Greek does not have 'symbol of' in verse 10. Why the 'angels'? Because of chapter 6. Both men and women who are saved will judge the angels.

verse 11 sums the passage up by reminding us IN THE LORD:

11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

See the progression (source of life?)when you read it in context? The whole passage is about freedom in headcovering for the Christian woman in that culture. Paul sums it all up at the end of this passage:

If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

:o) Lucy

Baptist Theologue (Mike Morris) said...


True, “tis” in 1 Timothy 3:1 is an indefinite pronoun. The descriptive qualifications in verses 2-7, however, are in the masculine form. Verse 1 cannot be divorced from its context. I could walk into a men’s locker room and ask, “Anyone here have an extra towel?” In such a case I can use an indefinite pronoun, but I would be using it in a male context. Notice, for instance, the masculine personal pronoun “autos” (he) in 1 Timothy 3:7. Thomas Lea commented on 3:1:

“In discussing the office of an overseer, Paul was not requesting that Timothy begin a new office in the church. Men were already functioning in the position (Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28).”

Lea, “1 Timothy,” in the New American Commentary, vol. 34 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 107.

Thus, Paul was speaking in a context in which the office of overseer was already understood to be limited to males. In other words, he was in a sense in a men’s locker room when he said “anyone” in 3:1 and 3:5. The historical context and the context of the passage (3:1-7) cannot be ignored.

The construction “ei tis” from 1 Timothy 3:1 also occurs in Titus 1:6: “If any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife. . .” It’s a combination of “if” (ei) and “anyone” (tis). A slightly different form occurs in 1 Timothy 3:5 “ei de tis” (but if anyone). This verse (5) connects male leadership in the home with male leadership in the church.

The Greek word “diakonos” does not only refer to the office of deacon. It can mean “minister” or “servant” even in reference to non-Christians (Romans 13:4, John 2:5). It was also used in reference to Jesus (Romans 15:8), Who was a minister and servant, but Who did not hold the office of deacon. The reference to Jesus as a minister (Romans 15:8) is very close in proximity to the reference to Phoebe as a servant (Romans 16:1).

Pamela said...

KMC, my comments about searching for the truth were in a broader sense, not just this issue. Those comments were for people in denominations in general. I have watched this type of battle in recent years with several denominations, especially a Presbyterian Church here in town. I want to make that clear.

However the remainder of my post is to you KMC. If you are so bold that you will say that you know the truth on this matter for those of us that disagree with you, you have proved my point that gender bias is rooted in pride. I am more than willing to check my views out and change them if needed. As you said you are studying Greek. THAT MEANS YOU DO NOT KNOW IT PERFECTLY. Neither do I BTW. There are others that are on this blog that are throwing out the Greek also. I do not know if they are Greek students or not. They obviously disagree with your 'truth' by checking out the Greek. They have a right to disagree if they sincerely do not see it like you do.

No one is saying that God does not use women in a variety of ways. In my own church we have a woman who facilitates a discipleship training class with men and women. She does not act as a pastor, nor does she act in authority over men, but in my small church this is the only and best option, but I pray daily for God to strengthen the men in my church to be able to rise to the occasion.

The part in bold concerns me greatly. You made it pretty clear that you do not want her in that position but she is the only option. It also sounds like you think the Lord is using her BUT the Lord using her is not as good as the Lord using a man in that position. To me this attitude is past an attempt to be doctrinally pure. You are communicating that you have a very low view of women. You are also communicating that the Lord has partiality to use males instead of females. That is a shame. If you really do not want her in that position, in order to be true to your beliefs you probably should shut down the discipleship training program until a man is available since that is what you really want. You do not have to have a discipleship program if having a woman facilitate it is against your doctrine. It would be hard for me to listen to someone spout out truth for me to follow when they are not walking that truth out.

Anonymous said...


You seem to be trying desperately to attack my position from every angle, and that is fine with me. But I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth and make assumptions that are not there. I will graciously respond for I too have been consciously guilty of doing this to Wade in the past (even though in those cases I was likely correct).

Let me address the last concern you raise. I do have an issue with a woman teaching a "mixed" class. But in the example I cited, teaching is hardly what is going on. The tradition of discipleship training for adults in the SBC is one of "read and respond" Or read and discuss. Quite honestly I think the entire program stinks. But it is one such program I have not tackled as of yet. I have been their pastor for 3 months--I have "a pastor" for only 3 months.

If it makes you feel any better, I am taking the program in a different direction in June, and will be using the Mohler/Kelley/Land book on the BFM as my first 6-8 week study.

I am in no way sacrificing my convictions in this case. I brought it up to say that I too believe God can use women in many places within the church. This lady is a Godly woman and also teaches the women's SS class, and is the church clerk. We each wear many hats in my church. But God is most glorified in us when we are most faithful to His Word.


Pamela said...

OK KMC I feel the same about you and how you want to prove your position. Discussion is really good. I really learn a lot from people I disagree with.

Thanks for the clarification on your stance about your facilitator. I guess the wording make me think something that was not the case.

Just realize that both of us are trying to go through the word and live by. We just happen to disagree. This will be my last comment on the matter.

BTW Thanks for being kind.

Anonymous said...

Pamela, you wrote:

"If you are so bold that you will say that you know the truth on this matter for those of us that disagree with you, you have proved my point that gender bias is rooted in pride. "

How does my firm conviction prove that gender bias is rooted in pride? I will give you that gender bias is rooted in pride, but my ability to know "truth" has nothing to do with gender bias, nor pride. Neither does holding to the view point that Scripture requires Pastors to have a ***** have anything to do with gender bias. You act as if knowing the truth is a bad thing. I hold firm to all of my convictions. I try to only have convictions on those things which the Bible and the Holy Spirit are explicit. As I learn and grow, I gain new convictions....and yes, in some cases alter old ones, based on "new light."

But these are rarely on issues where Scripture is most explicit. For instance, I am not certain if I hold to a pre-tribulation rapture. I do not think Scripture is explicit on this matter. I do however find compelling evidence. But I also find somewhat compelling evidence for the view of partial-Preterism. Do you know why I have not determined a concrete eschatological view? Two reasons actually: 1. I will be silent where Scripture is silent (in terms of dogmatic assertion). and 2. Because I have not studied this topic enough, nor sought the counsel of the Holy Spirit to the degree that I can say for certain. (and relatively speaking to some, I have studied different eschatological view a lot over the years.)

But as to Paul's absolutely clarity in passages like 1 Tim 3, et al, I can proclaim with absolute certainty that my conviction is from the Lord.
I do, however, believe in your right to be wrong. I also believe that cooperating Southern Baptist Churches have a right to require this same conviction of all those churches who cooperate.


Anonymous said...


It's been a pleasure. I too will now bow out as I have said way beyond what is proper on another man's thread.


Lin said...

Baptist theo,

To try and say that Phoebe was not a real deacon negates your entire argument. It is evident in WHAT she was doing as well as what she is called and what Paul had to say about her.

If the Holy Spirit had wanted us to understand that it was only men He would not have inspired et tis but would have made it crystal clear from the start.

Are you saying that verse 11 means wives and not women?

If it means 'wives' then I suppose that means no single men as elders.

Since you think Phoebe was not a bonfide deacon, I suppose you do believe this.

By the way, there are NO offices in the NT church. That is worldly pagan thinking that was added to translations that needs to go. We do not have a professional 'Christian' class made up of clergy/laity. We are a Holy Priesthood that is made up of functions within the Body. And the only 'authority' any of the functions have is the power of the Holy Spirit and the Word.

Anything else is man made tradition.

Anonymous said...

Wade - I am so glad that you have left KMC's posts up for all to see the vulgarity and the inability to communicate effectively.

I am also overwhelmed with joy that he has posted his name and that he is not using an anonymous so that those whom he oversees can hold him to account.

If they are too ignorant to do that (and I suspect they are) or if they simply are unaware of his "double life" which does not show any signs of biblical eldership, then they deserve him as their pastor for the next 60 years.

I hope that works out for you KMC.

KMC - As for me, I am glad I stayed anonymous so I can run the campaign against you if you ever step foot anywhere near the church I attend hoping to find another "blind flock".

By the way, KMC. You also said to Pamela "I will graciously respond..." to her and then proceeded to tell her "I do, however, believe in your right to be wrong."

From any direction you want to look at it KMC, that is most certainly NOT gracious.

Scripture says all liars will have their place in the lake of fire.

But I'm sure your congregation knows that. Right?

Perhaps not.

Anonymous said...

"KMC - As for me, I am glad I stayed anonymous so I can run the campaign against you if you ever step foot anywhere near the church I attend hoping to find another "blind flock"."

Anon, I showed this blog to our Chairman of Deacons (a woman and we have no elders) and she laughed and told me that love covers a multitude of sins and that I must love KMC and treat him as a brother in Christ no matter how hateful or vulgar he gets.

She reminded me of Romans 8: 28-29 and said we must be conformed to His matter what.

No wonder the men and women of all ages voted for her as Chairman. Out of 20 deacons we have 4 women. We are a conservative SBC church and believe that scripture is inerrant. We train everyone in the church to witness to EVERYONE regardless of gender or race.


Baptist Theologue (Mike Morris) said...

Lin, you said,

“To try and say that Phoebe was not a real deacon negates your entire argument. It is evident in WHAT she was doing as well as what she is called and what Paul had to say about her.”

Okay, let’s look at what she was doing, what she was called, and what Paul had to say about her.

Romans 16:1-2 – “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also.”

“servant of the church” – diakonon tes ekklesias – She could be classified under the third category (“women”) delineated in 1 Timothy 3:11 by means of “hosautos.”

“helper of many and of myself also” – This correlates with her servanthood. Good servants are good helpers.

John Murray commented on Phoebe:

“It is highly probable that Phoebe was the bearer of this epistle to the church at Rome. Letters of commendation were a necessity when a believer traveled from one community to another in which he was unknown to the saints. . . . Cenchreae was one of the ports for Corinth. There was a church there, and Phoebe was a servant of this church. . . . If Phoebe ministered to the saints, as is evident from verse 2, then she would be a servant of the church and there is neither need nor warrant to suppose that she occupied or exercised what amounted to an ecclesiastical office comparable to that of the diaconate. The services performed were similar to those devolving upon deacons. Their ministry is one of mercy to the poor, the sick, and the desolate. This is an area in which women likewise exercise their functions and graces. But there is no more warrant to posit an office than in the case of widows who, prior to their becoming the charge of the church, must have borne the features mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:9, 10. . . . The particular commendation of Phoebe is that she had been a helper of many and of Paul himself. This specification of virtue is, no doubt, mentioned as the outstanding feature of Phoebe’s service to the church and indicates that on account of which she was called a servant of the church.”

Murray, “The Epistle to the Romans,” in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 226-227.

Lin, you also said,

“If the Holy Spirit had wanted us to understand that it was only men He would not have inspired et tis but would have made it crystal clear from the start.”

Probably you are referring to “ei tis” (if anyone) in 1 Timothy 3:1. You might want to read an interesting discussion online about “tis.” In the discussion Carl Conrad, a Greek professor, stated,

“We should assume that the. sg. TIS (I wouldn't even call it 'the masculine' TIS) refers to either gender unless the context makes it quite clear that the gender is exclusively masculine.”

“Tis” in 1 Timothy 3:1 and 3:5 occurs in an exclusively masculine context.

Lin, you asked,

“Are you saying that verse 11 means wives and not women?”

No, I am saying that verse 11 means "women" and not "wives." There is no possessive pronoun in the Greek text. Some translations have “their wives,” but “their” is usually italicized to indicate that it is not in the Greek text.

Lin, you also stated,

“By the way, there are NO offices in the NT church.”

I respectfully disagree with you. Qualifications are listed for the office of overseer in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and in Titus 1:6-9. The standards are high, and some Christians cannot meet them. He cannot be a new convert (1 Timothy 3:6), and thus new converts cannot serve in this office. He must hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught, and he must be able by sound doctrine to exhort and convict those who contradict. Certainly not every Christian qualifies. I have served on ordination councils, and our primary mission has been to determine if candidates are qualified according to these Scripture passages. Does the candidate understand and embrace basic doctrines? Is he a one-woman kind of man, etc.? When a person is chosen for a position for which there are particular responsibilities and qualifications, then we can say that such a person holds an office.

Pamela said...

I was not going to comment on this post any more but I wanted to respond to Lucy.

Lucy, she is so right. This is when I tried to tone down my comments to KMC because he is precious to the Lord and to the body. Unfortunately all I got was another condesending slap. I smiled and laughed reading his last 'gracious' reply to me. It was absolutely hysterical. I'm sure Pastor Wade will get a kick out of this line of responses.

I best get back to work. God Bless You All.

Anonymous said...

"Anon, I showed this blog to our Chairman of Deacons (a woman and we have no elders) and she laughed and told me that love covers a multitude of sins and that I must love KMC and treat him as a brother in Christ no matter how hateful or vulgar he gets."

And she may be right Lucy. But unfortunately I can't listen to her. You see, she is a woman!!!


Anonymous said...

K. Michael Crowder,

I accept your apology. Mr. Crowder, I am a complementarian and there are certain persons who consider me a sexist because I believe that in the home and in the church God has assigned the headship to the male. Now having said that, I believe that as long as the senior pastor is a male, there are no other restrictions on the role of a female in the local church as long as the pastor or body of elders authorize the particular role the female function in. I see absolutely no biblical authority to restrict the role of females in the local church outside of the senior pastor's role. And yes, I believe that any attempt to do so is driven by traditikon or prejudice/sexism not Scripture or the Holy Spirit. Certainly, Paul instructed the church at Rome to "assist Phoebe in whatever business she has need of you" (Rom. 16:2). Paul is certainly saying to males at Rome to "assist" Phoebe. Phoebe was under Paul's authority and the Roman church including the males were to "assist" Phoebe at Paul's direction under Paul's and Phoebe's authority. We will simply agree to disagree that there is no correlation between gender roles and racism in church life. What they have in common is both are discriminated against based on things they cannot change - race and gender.

Paul tied the authority of the senior pastor's role to creation (I Tim. 2:12-14). And since Paul based his teaching that the senior pastor's role and authority was based on the creation model (I Tim. 2:13,14), I don't believe culture has any bearing on the ultimate headship under God on the roles of the male, the home and the church. I believe culture (not Scripture) is solely responsible for the restrictions on women outside of the senior pastor's role. And that my friend is what makes it discriminatory and comparable to racism.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Theologue:

Of course, I disagree with you and believe that ivory towers can produce group think en masse. It happened to me, too.

But who should I believe? Those who were closer in history to the early church or you and other academics who have a stake in women being kept back?

Here is a list of some early church fathers who wrote that Junia was a female Apostle. Not just revered by Apostles:

BTW: Shouldn’t a Christian be interested in proving the Bible, not using non-canonical works of fiction to disprove the Bible? No, my friend the critic does not respond to hard rock bedcore, historical facts that we have have so many Greek and Latin commentators who affirm Junia, sometimes Julia in the Latin, as a female. These writers include: Origin (185-254) as translated by Rufinus (345-410); Ambrosiaster (ca 375), though he uses Julia; John Chrysostom (Ca 345/354-407); Jerome (Ca 345-419); Theodoret of Cyrrhus (Ca 393-458); Ps, Primasius (died ca 567); John Damascene (Ca 675- ca 745); Hraban of Fulda (780-856); Haymo of Halbenstadt (840-853 writing); Halto of Vercelli (Tenth Century), who names Junia; Oecumenius (first half Sixth Century); Lantrauc of Bec (ca 1005-1089); Brum the Carthusian (ca 1030-1101); Theophylact (1095-1169)); Ambrose (339-397); Claudius of Turin (died 827); Sedulius-Seotus (848-858); Guillelmus Abbas (1085-1147); and Herveus Burgidolenis (late edition 1151).

These are imminent, unimpeachable, trustworthy, and highly regarded early Church Fathers and commentators to the witness stand. They all testify, in agreement with Paul, that Junia was a female apostle and stood out as a very good one.

So, you want to call Phoebe a mere servant unlike male servants in the church?

I am sorry to say your view on offices in the church is what led us to the Catholic church and their 'clergy/laity' distinctions. There is no such thing as 'ordination' unless you call a laying on of hands and prayer an 'ordination'. You are simply describing functions and they are accountable to the WHOLE body.

(Don't you find it strange that most of the Epistles were written to the WHOLE body and not to elders only?)

Yet, I have been watching as the SBC is becoming more Presbyterian in culture and Catholic in practice.

Why do we insist upon institutionalizing the Body of Christ? One can take a look at the empty Cathedrals in Europe to see where such a stance will lead us. A few men exercising their power over others.

Methinks you would have been very uncomfortable in Lydia's home church. :o)


Baptist Theologue (Mike Morris) said...


The apostolic office is no longer with us. These days I only recognize two biblical offices, pastor and deacon. This viewpoint (that there are only two offices now) is not a new one. Notice what our three official SBC confessions of faith say:

1925 Baptist Faith and Message: “Its Scriptural officers are bishops, or elders, and deacons.”

1963 Baptist Faith and Message: “Its Scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.”

2000 Baptist Faith and Message: “Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.”

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about these two offices. Hopefully we can both agree to cheer for the Tigers tonight.

Lin said...

Bap Theo,

We will have to disagree. I don't want to get into a back and forth on quoting scholars of both positions. Dueling scholars!

Although I will admit, scholars on the side of women deacons/elders are not as wealthy and well known as your scholars. This whole issue has become a cottage industry selling seminars, books, sermons, etc., so women can know their roles and check the boxes on their 'religous' lists of what they can and cannot do as Christians. I could only wish they were all in agreement on each item and would agree to a monolithic set of boxes to check. :o)

People love check list religions and extra Biblical teaching and traditions. It is easier than walking by faith and having an intimate relationship with our Savior. Most of what we are talking about comes from reading INTO Gen 1-2 what is not there. Many have simply transferred that filter to whatever they read in the NT.

Blessings to you

Baptist Theologue (Mike Morris) said...


Blessings to you, too. Go Tigers!

Jason Bengs said...

I struggle with the issue of the position of a woman in the church. I feel that the original intent of the BF&M was not to diminish the role of women in SBC life, but instead to be a reflection of the role of a woman in the family. A man is to be the spiritual head of the home, subject to Christ. We all know that this role is not often handled appropriately. In the church the pastor serves the same position as the man does in the home.
I also wonder how the position of pastor is defined in each church. In our church we only "label" the senior pastor as pastor and all the others are called ministers. In my understanding of the BF&M that would allow a woman to serve in one of the other positions (and prior to my joining the church that occurred).
The role of women on the mission field is interesting because sometimes the missionaries are the "pastors" and other times they are a resource for the pastor of a local body.
I would not have a problem with women being deacons in a church, because deacons are not the head of the church, the pastor is. Can women teach men, of course. Should women be allowed to preach, yes. Should women be ordained, yes. Should women be given the "office of pastor," well that all depends on how you define pastor, if we hold with what I understand scripture to say.
Having said that, I do not by any means have a perfect understanding of scripture, and God may clear my perspective on a topic later. Until then, this is how I understand scripture.

Pamela said...

If a woman is doing the work of a pastor she should be given the title and ordained like men would be. To say the title is not important is stupid. No one really believes that. Tell a man that he will not be called pastor. He will scream about it. Pastor is mentioned in the Bible once I believe. Why mention the name if it is not important?

If a group has no problem with a woman being a pastor across the waters she should be allow to pastor in the US. If they truly believe that women should not be pastors take the female pastors off the field. If a man will not take that position let the work die. If they are not willing to do that they are being hypocritical.