Tuesday, June 05, 2018

Elijah Craig, SBC Preachers, Scripture, and Women

One advantage of being a student of history is to know that the world - even the religious world - is always changing.

Southern Baptists will be gathering in Dallas, Texas next week. Some Southern Baptists pastors are bemoaning the changes that seem to be coming in regards to an increased role of leadership for women in the Southern Baptist Convention. "This should never happen!" they cry. "We who believe the Bible must stick to what the Bible teaches! Women should be silent and submit to men." 

Well, it could be these Southern Baptist pastors who are restricting women are misinterpreting what the Bible actually teaches about women.  I believe they are misinterpreting the Scriptures; big time. I also believe change is coming soon in the SBC to reflect a more biblical approach toward women. The Southern Baptist Convention may even have a female President sooner rather than later.

But if Baptists believe the Bible, how can Baptists change their minds about what the Bible teaches? How can these wrongheaded Baptist pastors ever change their views on women?


Let me show you what I mean with a quick history of Baptists changing our minds.

Baptist Pastors Receiving No Salary

Elijah Craig (1738-1808), was one of the most well-known Baptist preachers of his day. He was influential in the Baptists of Virginia helping to adopt the First Amendment of the United States. Elijah later served as pastor of the large Crossing Baptist Church (Kentucky). Elijah is said by one historian to have “played a vital role in communicating the views of the Virginia Baptists to the new state government."

Elijah Craig wrote a book entitled A Few Remarks on the Errors That Are Maintained in the Christian Churches of the Present Day (1801). In it he wrote:
"Pastors…are precluded by the Scriptures from receiving any compensation for their services...”
Well, I would expect that out of the 10,000 Southern Baptists pastors present at Dallas, Texas next week, the vast majority of them will be glad that Baptists have changed our position on what the Bible teaches about paying pastors.

But there's more...

Baptist Drinking and Distributing Whisky

Baptist Pastor Elijah Craig made his living to support his wife and six kids by inventing Kentucky Bourbon, a corn liquor aged in charred barrels, and selling it to the general public. Elijah Craig Bourbon, produced since 1789 in the distillery Baptist pastor Elijah Craig named Heaven Hill, is still available for purchase around the world. This past year (2017), Elijah Craig Bourbon was voted America's best bourbon.

What? I thought the Southern Baptist Convention has always deemed the sell and use of alcohol to be a sin? No. Not even close.

In 1796, the Elkhorn Baptist Association, a Kentucky association (constituted in 1785), ruled that "denying a member church membership because he sold intoxicants was unjustified." It was not until 100 years later (1886) that the Southern Baptist Convention began passing resolutions against alcohol.

So Southern Baptists have changed our minds on paying pastors and drinking whiskey.

But there's more.

Baptists Smoking and Selling Tobacco

The first Baptist church which called Elijah Craig to be their pastor, the Blue Run Baptist Church, met in a tobacco farm shed. That's right. All the members smoked tobacco and sold it to make a living - including their pastor.

Baptists in Elijah Craig's day smoked and chewed tobacco, drank and sold whiskey, and wouldn't pay their pastors a salary.

But there's more.

Baptists Giving Grief to the Government

It was while plowing his field in 1768, that Baptist pastor Elijah Craig was arrested and imprisoned for seventeen days for preaching “schismatick doctrines.”

Contrary to many modern Southern Baptist leaders who believe national government and the church should be one and the same, Baptist pastor Elijah Craig advocated that government and the church should always be separated. Government officials imprisoned him.

But apparently, the prison couldn’t keep Elijah from preaching. Baptists gathered outside the jail, and this Baptist pastor named Elijah Craig preached the gospel through the bars of his jail window. Consequently, the authorities built a high wall around the prison to keep people from hearing.

Eventually, Elijah Craig was released to go back to his whiskey and tobacco business - and preaching the gospel.

Baptists Seeing Slavery as Scriptural

Baptist Pastor Elijah Craig and the members of his congregation needed people to work their tobacco fields, char their bourbon barrels, and carry their fermented corn (bourbon) to the market.

Southern Baptists for decades believed that holding slaves was not only biblical Christianity, they also preached tens of thousands of messages on the evil of abolition

Of course, we've changed our minds...once again. 


Nobody has ever accused me of holding back from speaking my mind, so let me summarize this little history lesson and bring it back to 2018 and the Southern Baptist Convention's imminent change on its wretched view of women. 
"I'll not believe a Southern Baptist pastor cannot change his mind about what the Bible teaches about women until I meet a Southern Baptist pastor who receives no salary, who smokes tobacco and drinks whiskey regularly, who refuses to identify with any political party to the point of prison, and who can introduce me to the slaves he keeps in his house."
Until then, I'd encourage Southern Baptist preachers to stop the shallow sanctimonious sermonettes on how the Bible is authoritative about restricting women from "authority over men" and from "teaching men." 

Maybe it's all of you who are missing the actual teaching of the Bible on women.

The history of Baptists and the changes that have come our way indicates I know of what I speak. 


Anonymous said...

What you have written is the reason many Baptist Christians, including Southern Baptists until recent history, have rejected creeds. Baptists chose to be “confessional” in order to share with the world what they generally believed, but rejected “creeds” as a source of doctrinal accountability which they would use to discipline or exclude others. They did this because they recognized their own fallibility. They believed the Bible was infallible. They knew they were not infallible, so they went to great lengths to distinguish between a creed and a confession. The Southern Baptist Convention desperately needs that same understanding and humility now.

Practically it means when discussing the issue of women, we need to stop referring to what the 2000 BF&M says. We need to talk about what the Scripture says.

Charles Hadden Spurgeon years ago wrote in a sermon entitled “Christ is All”, “(There are some who) have taken a certain book, other than the Bible, and say, "We will judge all things by this book"; and if the preacher does not teach exactly the creed written in that book, he is set down as not sound in the faith, and this they do not hesitate to say at once, because he does not come up to the standard of their little book! We meet with many people in this world who make their creed, their one little narrow creed everything, and they measure everything and everybody by that. But, my friends, I must have you say that "Christ is all," and not any (creed or teaching of) man, however good or great, before I can allow that you are Christians. We have not to follow men. Our faith stands not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God. We are to follow no man, except so far as he follows Christ, who alone is our Master.”

How did Jesus treat women? What does the Scripture as a whole say about women? The attitude Paige Patterson has demonstrated doesn’t look much like Jesus, and unfortunately, it is a reflection of many others in the convention. The 2000 BF&M statement concerning women does not look like and is not representative of the full counsel of God’s word.

Frankly, Southern Baptists position on women now is as embarrassing as their position on slavery many years ago.

Alaskan in Texas said...

After reading that history lesson, I feel like firing up a corona and relaxing on my front porch with a nice little glass of bourbon while I wait for my wife to get home from her secular job so we can talk about how much of her salary we should the tithe to support the paid staff at church. I'd ask my servants to prepare my libation, but I gave them the day off.

Wade Burleson said...

Alaskan, you're funny.

Anonymous, well stated. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

God calls his people to repentance. The events you have illustrated involved a turning away from sinful practices and positions. That is what is called for now.

I am not a southern baptist, but I am an older woman who experienced sexual abuse by my father in the home of a church-going family. I longed to tell someone, but both feared not being believed and also thinking that knowing it would kill my grandmother whom I loved dearly. I was probably wrong on both accounts. God has mercifully through the years lovingly healed my life and heart and He is very precious to me.

There is a burden on my heart and many others to cry to God for a moving of God in repentance and a great gathering of sinners into God's kingdom. I believe that that will require great repentance on the part of God's people.

I have read discussion of what needs to happen at the convention in regard to Paige Patterson's speech. This is what I am asking God for: The Paige Patterson would come before the convention and in his own words say: " I have sinned against God and against his people, I have sinned against specific women, I have sinned in my attitude and teaching about women, I have been a proud and arrogant man. I am deserving of the consequences of the board. I have asked God's forgiveness and I humbly ask yours." I would long for a confession that would open the floodgates of repentance in this country. I know nothing personally about him but I am praying for what God is doing in his heart these days.

This is probably getting off topic for this thread. I am new to blog responding.

Unknown said...

Anonymous (above), what a touching statement of forgiveness from someone who suffered much -- at the hands of your own father. While I too pray for a convention sermon asking for forgiveness, it would be a total change of character and direction for more than 5 decades of this man's life -- so I doubt it.

Wade, thank you for your courage, truth-telling, and willingness to put your neck on the line for the women in the SBC -- and elsewhere -- who deserve it.

rodneyjsw said...

Wade, amen

Rex Ray said...

Scripture reveals ‘untruth’ in the Bible.

“…I am on trial because my hope is in the resurrection of the dead.” (Acts 23:6)

Paul’s statement is untrue as he confessed it was untrue: “Ask these men here what crime the Jewish high counsel found me guilty of EXCEPT for the one time I shouted out, ‘I am on trial before you today because I believe in the resurrection of the dead.” (Acts 24:20-21)

Paul knew he was on trial for believing in Jesus but he changed it to believing in the resurrection of the dead which is in a way doing what Peter did when the rooster crowed.

“I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

In defending his statement, Paul shot himself in the foot by quoting Scripture out of context: “FOR GOD MADE ADAM FIRST, AND AFTERWARDS HE MADE EVE.” (1 Timothy 2:13)

Then Paul puts ALL the blame on Eve. “And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.” (1 Timothy 2:14)

In his rant, Paul loses more credibility by saying, “But women will be saved through childbearing…” (1 Timothy 2:15)

First anonymous,

You nailed it. Southern Baptists NEED a new BF&M; one that reveals the teaching of Jesus about women.

Bob Cleveland said...

I'll give a clue as to my position on all this:

Today is Primary Election Day in Alabama, and I am about to go vote for ladies for both Governor and Lieutenant Governor. They're the best candidates, IMO.

A lady also has frequently led our SS class. Her lessons are among the best.

Mbill0327 said...


Did you know that there is actually a whiskey cellar at SBTS? - at leadt tgat is my understanding

Also, a known SBC pastor says of Dt 14:26 that it was basically non alcoholic juice. Lol
The context of the Hebrew makes it very plain that alcohol is the true subject of the matter

Grace and peace to all

Christiane said...

I would rejoice more that Paige Patterson has been brought to justice
IF he were able to repent.

That he has not publicly acknowledged his remorse for hurting innocent people is worrisome for the sake of his soul.

I ask God's mercy that the Holy Spirit sends to Paige Patterson a spirit of contrition for his acts that harmed people . . . .

Justice, YES but then also the Mercy that only God can give to PP

But the 'mercy' of God can be very painful to experience sometimes, and when it comes in the form of being put under conviction, it can break one's heart
. . . but that is the way of healing and we, none of us who have knowingly sinned are spared from the need to kneel before Our Lord and asking His forgiveness.
The truth is that it is against God that PP has first sinned when PP hurt the innocent.

Hopefully some day, PP may be able to ask the forgiveness of those he victimized. . . . that would be a sign of God's grace:
it is said in the prayers of the Orthodox that the Holy Spirit has the power to thaw the frozen places of men's hearts, and in that way, to encourage men to turn towards God again.

Writer said...


I appreciate your article and its good intention. My only issue is that you're basing your conclusions on the beliefs and actions of one man. I am writing the church history for the 150th anniversary for my church. You're exactly right that things have changed. People were excommunicated for missing more than two Sundays in a row, dancing, and public drunkenness. At least where I live, alcohol was a problem with the church. In addition, our church had no problem paying the pastor. In 1880. the pastor was paid $75.00 for the entire year. In our area, it seems that the growth of the temperance movement in the mid-1800s began to be embraced by Baptist churches. In many places, such as where I pastor, as in much of the rural south, that mindset still exists.

I only point out these things to say that Baptists in other parts of the country may have had different experiences than the person you cited. That's not to say that either one is right or wrong, just different.

I do agree with your bottomline point that things change. Whether these changes have been due to differing views of scripture or the absence of scripture, I don't know. That's for someone else to say.

I applaud your unyielding support for women. I would have no problem with a female SBC President. Unlike some others, I don't believe the presidency represents anything similar to a pastoral position. Keep up the good work.

Writer said...

Sorry but I didn't see that the writer should identify him or herself. This is Leslie Puryear who wrote the previous comment. Thanks.

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks, Les, for your comments.

I think we agree on the bottomline of the post. Things change.

I neither advocate for Elijah Craig Whiskey, Camel cigarettes, pastors receiving no salary, nor slaves.

I do advocate change for the SBC in terms of our view of women.

Ben Stratton said...


Just a few of the historical problems with your article:

1. Why they met in a tobacco barn. This was not uncommon in pioneer days. It was a large open building, as opposed to a livestock barn. This would have only been until they could have built a proper meeting house. Also it is not true that, "ALL the members smoked tobacco and sold it to make a living - including their pastor." A majority yes, but not "ALL."

2. Pastors receiving a salary. Yes, many of those pioneer Baptists (but not all) did not believe in a set salary. However what you will find is they didn't have a problem receiving gifts. I have a Primitive Baptist / Missionary Baptist debate from not long after that. The Primitive preacher rebukes the Missionary Baptist for receiving a salary for preaching. The Missionary Baptist preacher then tells how every member of the Primitive Baptist Church gave their pastor a baby calf last year as a gift!

3. Elijah Craig and the making of whiskey. When you study pioneer Baptist history, you find Elijah Craig has several problems. One key one is he is too busy with his business practices (which included making and selling whiskey) when he should have been focused on the gospel ministry. He was no where near as dedicated as other well-known Baptist preachers of the same period.

You can prove just about anything you want by Baptist history. While our history is fascinating and needs to be rediscovered, our ultimate authority is not church history, but the Word of God.

Unknown said...

Wade you make a good case about Southern Baptists changing their views. But when are we going to get around to discussing what the Scriptures actually say? I have long said that we tend to pick and choose our texts depending on what we want to "prove." I am teaching through Acts on Wednesday nights. In Acts 21:8-9 Phillip had four virgin daughters who "prophesied." The great Southern Baptist Greek Scholar A. T. Robertson had this to say in his "Word Pictures in the New Testament about these verses (forgive the long quotation):

"Paul in 1 Cor. 11:5 gives directions about praying and prophesying by the women (apparently in public worship) with the head uncovered and sharply requires the head covering, though not forbidding the praying and prophesying. With this must be compared his demand for silence by the women in 1 Cor. 14:34–40 and 1 Tim. 2:8–15 which it is not easy to reconcile. One wonders if there was not something known to Paul about special conditions in Corinth and Ephesus that he has not told. There was also Anna the prophetess in the temple (Luke 2:36) besides the inspired hymns of Elizabeth (Luke 1:42–45) and of Mary (Luke 1:46–55). At any rate there was no order of women prophets or official ministers. There were Old Testament prophetesses like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah. Today in our Sunday schools the women do most of the actual teaching. The whole problem is difficult and calls for restraint and reverence. One thing is certain and that is that Luke appreciated the services of women for Christ as is shown often in his writings (Luke 8:1–3, for instance) before this incident."

All I am saying is, if we are going to have the debate let's talk about what ALL of the Scriptures actually say.

Wade Burleson said...

"Our ultimate authority is not church history, but the Word of God."

Well of course, Ben.

That's what Baptist slaveholders said once, too.
That's what the Baptist whiskey makers said once, too.
That's what the Baptist whig activists said once, too.

That's my point.

Wade Burleson said...

I happen to agree, Ben, that the "ultimate authority is not church history, but the Word of God."

I'm just asking for a tad bit of humility when it comes to interpreting the Word of God so that we don't issue categorical pronouncements on what the Word of God means.

Wade Burleson said...

Greg Dills,

For over 15 years I have publicly written on what the Bible teaches about women. Just use the search bar on the top left corner of www.wadeburleson.org

Here's an example:

What the Bible Says about Women in Ministry

Unknown said...


I wasn't referring so much to you specifically (but thanks for pointing me in the right direction about your teaching) but all of us in general who are having this discussion. We seem to get caught up in rhetoric and leave out Scriptural reasons for why we believe what we believe and also dealing with the "problem" Scriptures that don't help prove our view.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Greg and understood your point. One of the reasons Wade's articles on women in ministry are so powerful and I believe helpful is because most people don't understand all the Biblical support there is for women in ministry and leadership. They have only heard preachers who gave them a very narrow, one-sided and limited view of the issue, and sadly, I'm not convinced most of the those preachers every considered the full counsel of God's Word on the issue of women.

When people actually read for themselves in Acts 2:16-18 where Peter quotes the prophet Joel who said, “In the last days, God says (referring to days we are living in now) I will pour out my spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days and they will prophesy.”

When people read for themselves that Paul called Phoebe a “diakonos”, which we translate that same word in Timothy as deacon. He commended Euodia and Syntyche as his "fellow workers" (Phil. 4:2-3). And he listed Junia (feminine name) as "among the apostles," the highest level of leadership in the early church (Rom. 16:7). Also in the same chapter, you have Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis who it says, “Worked hard for the Lord.” 2 John 1:1 is addressed to the Chosen lady and her children. Some suggest a pastor but certainly someone influential and in leadership. On and on I could go.

When honest, sincere Christians read those passages for themselves or hear them from a faithful pastor who is not afraid to speak all the Word of God, they either agree that women can have leadership in the church, or, at the very least, they understand how sincere, faithful and Bible believing people come to that conclusion.

Wade thanks so much for speaking the truth of God's Word. It does make a difference.

Nancy2 said...

Hey, Ben Stratton!
If you are who I think you are, I know your parents and your brother. I live about 2 miles from Cedar Grove - was a member there for a long time, then Bellview in Allegre.
When are you speaking in Todd county again???

Anonymous said...

I am so glad we left that ass backwards denomination many years ago and will never go back. We have attended and become United Methodist where women are truly treated as equals at every level. Some of the best and most informative sermons and Sunday school lessons have been taught this old man by godly women. Getting rid of “Doctor” Patterson is a good start at changing the system.

Gary Dennington said...

Thank you, yes it is.

Wallace H. Rowland Jr. said...

My authority is not the church or a bible; my authority is the King, the ‘Word of God’—Jesus Christ. Jesus is actually alive in the flesh. Everything He has ever said are the words of God, whether they were written down or not. Everything He says today are the words of God. Whenever, I hear the rhema of the Father through Jesus by the Holy Spirit--these are the words of God to me. Jesus is literally alive. May the Lord continue to teach me how to hear His Voice.

I truly share this in love,

-Wallace H. Rowland Jr.

Anonymous said...

Rev Burleson, could I get your email address? Mine is tsmith3713@bellsouth.net

Wade Burleson said...


You may email me at wwburleson@gmail.com

Anonymous said...


I hope you will look into the "Biblical Counseling" department at Southwestern. Even with Patterson gone, countless additional pastors will demean and shame women who come to them for counsel and support unless this program is reformed. It's been said that SWBTS Professors Babler and Catanzaro have shunned and shamed precious women when they left abusive husbands, even in order to protect their children.


Wade Burleson said...


A look at the Biblical Counseling Center at SWBTS is coming. I am quite interested in what the head of that department was doing a few years back - say 2003.

Jon L. Estes said...

“I'm just asking for a tad bit of humility when it comes to interpreting the Word of God so that we don't issue categorical pronouncements on what the Word of God means.”

I am not sure that humility is required to interpret scripture correctly. It would be great but not required.

If one interprets scripture and has a humility, this does not assure us the interpretation is right.

Then you have the problem of two humble persons interpreting scripture differently.

I believe you are a tad bit humble person but I think you interpret scripture and make categorical pronouncements on what God means while at the same time saying those who interpret differently than you are categorically wrong.

Interesting at best.

Of course you think you are correct... as do those who interpret the same passages differently. It is probable that some of those are much more humble than either of us and they are willing to humbly pronounce their position categorically.

Anonymous said...

Jon, have a point. It makes it more interesting.

Jon L. Estes said...

Anonymous - 11:14 PM -

I make it a habit to not even read posts submitted by those who do not clearly recognize themselves and hide behind anonymous. Your comment was a short one-liner and I read it only because it was hard not to.

So, I will respond to your comment and you can do with it what you want.

If you cannot see the point I am making, that is on you.

Wade Burleson said...


Of course, I think I'm correct in my interpretation, but I also believe in my heart I could be wrong.

What I'm waiting for is for someone to show me a better interpretation that is consistent with the entirety of Scripture, linguistically, historically, and textually sound in its exegesis.

Until then, I'll remain convinced I'm right, but listen to anyone making an appeal for a better interpretation.

Jacque said...

I graduated from SWBTS with a degree in marriage and family therapy in 1987 when that degree existed and was something to be proud of. I am appalled at what has been dismantled and destroyed under Patterson’s reign! It makes me sick! I toomwant to know the truth regarding how bad it is, about like looking at a cancer!

Jon L. Estes said...


"What I'm waiting for is for someone to show me a better interpretation that is consistent with the entirety of Scripture, linguistically, historically, and textually sound in its exegesis. "

And those who disagree with you are waiting for the same.

Not all those who disagree with you take it as far as Dr. Patterson does, yet the argument being presented is as if all complementarians do. Even you come across that way... in my reading you.

Wade Burleson said...


Sometimes, when a pendulum swings out of balance, you have to push hard to restore the symmetry.

I am a complementarian in the truest and best sense of the man-made word.

I do not believe the full-orbed image of God is seen without BOTH the man and the woman. The man complements the woman, and the woman complements the man, so when both are seen together, you have the full-orbed image of God.

That's complementarianism.

What I write against is the unwise, unbiblical, and unhealthy authoritarianism that should be completely absent from the Kingdom of Christ.

Anonymous said...

Again, neither a fundamentalist approach nor the modern tendency to let society dictate our interpretations is wise.

Simply put, I personally do not believe any human being of either gender has authority in the church. As long as men are perceived to be in authority sinful women will rail to be allowed the same authority. Back to who sits on Jesus' right and His left.

When we get rid of the unbiblical ideas regarding leadership and authority and return to true servanthood among equals, I suspect many men "in it for the position" and many women wanting the same will suddenly not want to be bothered being a leader or pastor or preacher.

And then the real leaders and pastors and preachers can get the job done without status bickering.

The solution is not in allowing women to function in a manner not consistent with the New Testament, but to stop allowing both men and aspiring women to do so.

So yes, I would say I'm against paid clergy of either gender and think eliminating that idea will stop the tempest in a teapot of pushing for women's ordination or licensing or appointing or whatever you want to call it.

But then in the SBC church of my home village and childhood, when a man announced he was called to preach he was handed a hoe. Chop some weeds and kill some rattlesnakes. Still feel called? Handed a paint brush and some insect killer to keep the wasps away from worshippers. Still called? Teach SS, especially the worst behaved kids. Still feel called? We will listen to you preach and ONLY IF THE PEW PEON AGREES you are called to preach will we license you. Then you can supply preach for gas money only. And ONLY IF THE PEW PEONS somewhere agree you are called to preach will you ever pastor a church. Maybe even move on to an education. Most preached lifetimes on the supply basis and had to earn a living in the oilfield right along with the rest of the men who back then did support their families.

Under that system, very few of either gender ever felt called to preach. And those that did stick with it never saw themselves as in authority--that was vested in the local church--or in leadership, since all decision making was done by the congregation and the pastor could not vote and his wife was expected to abstain.

Return to that system and then maybe the issue of who can serve will take care of itself.


Jon L. Estes said...

“What I write against is the unwise, unbiblical, and unhealthy authoritarianism that should be completely absent from the Kingdom of Christ.”

What you write against is authority period.

Didn’t you recently say you wanted to see all authority be gone in the church and marriage? In that comment you did not address unwise... unbiblical... unhealthy. You only addressed authority.

Victorious said...

As long as men are perceived to be in authority sinful women will rail to be allowed the same authority.

...eliminating that idea will stop the tempest in a teapot of pushing for women's ordination or licensing or appointing or whatever you want to call it.

I suspect many men "in it for the position" and many women wanting the same will suddenly not want to be bothered being a leader or pastor or preacher.

hmmm...Sounds like you are advocating "knocking men off their pedestals" so women won't want it.

How dare that sinful Rosa Parks think she was entitled to a seat on the bus just like a man was?

How dare those women expect to have the same voting privileges that men did?

Why couldn't sinful women serve on a jury until 1973 or so?

When I worked at Xerox many years ago, women were sent home for wearing pants rather than a dress! Which is more modest do you think?

When I got divorced and tried to get a credit card, I couldn't. You know why??? I didn't exist! Everything was in my husband's name.

How dare a woman object to having a man walk her down the aisle rather than both parents?

Do you endorse women having to give up her name and take her husbands? When she does that, she is, in essence losing her identity and many of her friends and acquaintances from her past won't know how to locate her.

I could go on and on, but when you reach the ripe old age that I am, and look back....it's hard to believe the nonsense women have had to endure just to bring an awareness that they are human beings with the same capabilities, desires, and goals that men have and ought to be afforded the right to pursue them. And that without being perceived as "sinful" for expecting them.

/end of rant

A-nonymous said...

Babler was fairly new in the early 90's, and I don't think was elected to the faculty yet but his narrow-mindedness and condescending attitude toward women (& over all haughtiness as one out it) was drawing attention from many fellow students because it was so different in the lack of love & grace and the creepy authoritarian vibe that "bloomed" in full with this PopePP revelation and accountability. People I knew didn't think he was cut out for SWBTS faculty but apparently he's the exact kind of professor PP likes. If not for other professors, those I knew were ready to earn their counseling degree from TCU or nearby universities. So I'm very surprised he made it as a faculty member.

Lee Edward Enochs said...

Pastor Wade. Can you do a careful exegesis of 1 Timothy 2: 12 and post it here? Seems clear that the Scriptural prohibition against women teaching and having authority over men is a creation ordinance not a temporary cultural preference.

Rex Ray said...


Your wrote, “Do you endorse women having to give up her name and take her husbands? When she does that, she is, in essence losing her identity and many of her friends and acquaintances from her past won't know how to locate her.”

That was a problem I had in trying to find a college sweetheart that broke my heart many years ago. After we parted I married the nicest girl in the world for 55 years. I cried my eyes out when she met Jesus in 2012.

With no communication in 57 years, I hired an agency to find out if this girl was still alive. She lost her husband. She still had a jewelry box I’d made her that had carved: “NT”, [for North Texas University] “1956”, and “Judy”. Inside the box was my picture [when I had hair :) ]

This 4th of July we will celebrate our third anniversary. Oh happy day!

Victorious said...

Rex, I'm so very happy you were able to find the woman from your past but having to hire an agency shouldn't have been necessary if she had kept her family name. She obviously had fond memories of you when she looked at (and kept) the jewelry box you had made for her.

Congratulations to you and Judy for your upcoming anniversary!

Tad Thompson said...

Wade I have no problem with you using this moment to espouse egalitarianism. But your arguments from history are emotive, yet flawed.
This type of argument seems powerful, but it has zero weight. If a group is wrong or changes it’s mind on issue x, y, and z it does not necessarily follow that it is wrong about issue Q. This argument only proves that the consensus view on various issues has changed over time and that some positions were upheld through an erroneous handeling of the Scriptures. As well, a group of men’s ungodly treatment of women does not prove the credibility of an egalitarian exegetical position. There are certainly examples of egalitarian men who have mistreated women. Their sin does nothing to discredit an egalitarian interpretation of Scripture. Exegetical arguments must be settled in the text itself. Various groups have changed their minds on whole host of issues, but the presence of change can never be an argument for truth itself. The SBC should practice sempor reformada, but it must always flow from fierce fidelity to the textual evidence. I realize you have a textual argument. The argumentation presented in this post is not very helpful, provocative, but not helpful.

Anonymous said...

Wade, I hope you can explore a biblical topic more on the issue of divorce and remarriage. In my Hebraic research and contextualizing of Matthew, I am realizing that Jesus addressed the issue of the husband's reasons for divorce and that Jesus was dealing with that issue specifically. Also, though separations were done sometimes without a certificate of divorce, and that what was Jesus was addressing. In Hebraic research, the wife indeed can divorce for the neglect or abuse. Convinced that Patterson's dogmatic beliefs and misinterpretation on this passage and others like tithing misguided him in his decisions. Can't believe that anyone would ever think that he was solid in his foundations. He's paying for it now as well as others.

Wade Burleson said...


Well of course. History is not the reason anyone should believe anything. Rather history is a humble agent; those who know it have a tad more humility about their "fierce fidelity to the textual evidence" because history will show you some arguments once declared authoritative were simply speculative.

Florence in KY said...

Folks, I am proud to be a liberal! To me, being a liberal means to be a person who is free to be the person God has called one to be, whether male or female. A person who is free of bias and believes that with God there is no male or female, bond or free, "Jew or Gentile," but all are loved the same by God. Also, that "Whosoever will" may come to God, through Christ. God's love is God's gift and is free to ALL. It is God's will that NONE may perish. I am 94-yr-old and have these things on my mind, for such a time as this!

Steve Doyle said...

So...how does one decide if "arguments once declared authoritative were simply speculative"? By examining and rightly dividing the Scriptures. You could dig up countless other examples of speculative positions that Baptists and others have taken which have been misguided, but the only way a church corrects its course is by allowing the Word to reprove, correct and teach us. So, Baptist must humbly and charitably examine complementarianism and egalitarianism in the light of Scripture to chart the course ahead. I do not believe complementarianism is the fruit of fanciful speculation but rather it is drawn from careful exegesis. This article may stir up the ones who already share your opinion and it may resound well in an echo chamber, but it will not change the mind of those who need exegetical evidence.

Rex Ray said...


I hear what you’re saying. But Paige Patterson told Dillday, “You’re Conservative all right, but you’re not one of us.”

Florence, you see in the real world, LIBERALS stole the name Conservative, and the TRUE Conservatives got stuck with the name ‘Liberals’.

Congratulations on being brilliant at your age. I heard the only people who want to live till they are 100 are those who are 99. :)