SBC and Women Preachers???

Back on page one of this thread---Mister Graves made the comment and asked the question concering 11,000 women preachers in the SBC--whether the number of women ministers were about right.

Well, as far as female "ministers"---there may be that particular number---associates and other positions within the church--but to have a number like 11,000 Female Senior Pastors probably would be blowing it all out of perportion---

To my knowledge---Mississippi Southern Baptists have only one one female Senior Pastor. Now, thats one out of 2500 SBC churches in the state--if there's 11,000 of um---then the others have a lot of catchin' up to do.

 

So apparently everyone familiar with Southern Baptist life agrees that a figure of 11,000 female "preachers" is completely inaccurate. Any disagreement?

 

I should clarify my position: It is NOT, I repeat, NOT unbibical for a woman to be a preacher. Neither is it unbiblical for a woman to lead a congregation. However, if the SBC decides that only men can lead a flock, that is their right. The SBC, however, does not speak for every Baptist contregation, nor does it speak for Christianity in general. It only speaks for SBC congregations. As an SBC person myself, I've never seen a woman lead a flock. If the SBC were to formally allow women to do so, it wouldn't bother me one bit. And if a non-SBC congregation wants to choose a woman to lead them, it is certainly allowable biblically, and is allowable in the Baptist Distinctives.

 

Oh, but remember Lifeway is a business. Doesn't that sound like the denomination that told its people not to drink caffeinated beverages until they prucahased a soft drink business. Seems like a lot of theology is changed by what could be financial gain. Lifeway is even handling charismatic books and other books that would not support the theology taught in SBC seminaries. It's one thing to appear to have the right theology and another to adhere to it. </font>[/QUOTE]Does selling Beth Moore's books in Lifeway mean that the SBC endorses having female pastors? I don't think so. That is a 1 + 1 = 5 type statement. Besides, you guys are missing the point. It is not simply about a woman "preaching or teaching" it is about women not usurping the God ordained order of authority in His created order. Beth Moore is not serving as a pastor of a local church, nor does she assume authority over any one body of believers (a local church).

Additionally, the selection of books at Lifeway containing Charismatic resources is not a problem. If it is then I had better head on over to the Library here at SEBTS and start a book burning. We have books by Liberal Scholars, by Catholic Scholars, by Presbyterian Scholars, by Charismatics, by Mormons, by GWs, by Muslims, and the list goes on. One of the purposes of Lifeway is to provide the resources for our Baptist people to be Theologically well educated. You can not be so educated if you don't know what the other side is saying and teaching. </font>[/QUOTE]It is doubtful that the average person would be shopping for a book to better understand the charismatic or some other viewpoint. Most people want to better understand what they should believe as a Baptist.

Does that mean you would advocate Lifeway selling the Book of Mormon also?

I cannot sell what I believe to be heretical. A Christian bookstore is not there to sell heresy.

SWBTS also has many books they don't agree with. But I think the people who are students at a seminary understand that too. A library is for research.

 

Now, Bible-boy,

As a Baptist you should know very well that there's a difference, according to traditional Baptist definitions, between a creed and a doctrinal statement, regardless of what a dictionary says. In Baptist thought the two are certainly NOT synonymous.

The BF&M 2000 is to be used as an "instrument of doctrinal accountability," which elevates it to creedal status. Also, instead of leaving the issue of women pastors to the local church, the new creed specifically rejects women pastors.

If I remember corerctly, the Preamble was about to be eliminated, but some considered this as going too far, and it was kept or restored.

Also, in the so-called "conservative resurgence," the traditional Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of THE BELIEVER has given way to the priesthood of ALL BELIEVERS. A subtle change? Not to those who realize the implications.

 

You mean in your way of thinking about Baptist thought, right. I am not concerned with tradition. I want to be biblical nothing more and nothing less. As far as the words we use to define something they have meanings and we know what those meanings... mean! A creed and a doctrinal statement are both the explanation of one's beliefs. If you take one to mean something different than the other please explain how they are different in your view.

Nope...
the BF&M 2000 says that the messengers at the 2000 convention agreed that the Bible says that women can not be pastors. It is up to each autonomous Southern Baptist Church to determine if, that specific church, agrees with and accepts the BF&M 2000.

I can't vouch for your memory or the validity of this statement. All I know is that the statement that you were so concerned about is still very much a part of the current BF&M.

The implication is that everyone who claims to be a Southern Baptist cannot simply believe whatever they choose to believe and still be rightly defined as a Southern Baptist.

"Traditional Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of The Believer"? Would you mind quoting a handful of noteable Baptist Theologians from say the 1600s to the early 1900s that held this view that you are asserting?

As I recall the preisthood of All Believers was an issue that Martin Luther raised in the 1500s and protestant theologians, and Baptist theologians, have pretty much agreed with Luther's take on the issue (except liberal theologians who want to say that we all can believe whatever we want to believe).

Here is how Southern Baptist have dealt with this issue and the theological positions that drive the view (preisthood of THE BELIEVER) that you are asserting:

 

Bible-boy,

Any objective person can see who is deviating from historic Baptist beliefs; hint: it isn't me doing the deviating.

A creed is mandatory and obligatory; a confession of faith is not. That is the historic Baptist position, and you know it. If you deny it, maybe you should brush up on Baptist history.

The doctrines of soul liberty and the priesthood of the believer were held and defended by E.Y. Mullins and Herschell Hobbs, for example. Of course, the current fundamentalist dictatorship does not look favorably on these two men, especially Mullins.

You can cite all the fundamentalist papal bulls and encyclicals you want, but that does not change the historic Baptist position on these doctrines. I notice you only cite those position papers put out by the SBC since the fundy takeover. How could you do otherwise, since the new SBC is a different animal from the pre-late seventies SBC. Sorry; the fundamentalists are the revisionists.

 

The Rev. Thomas Armitage, "Baptist Doctrine," 1892 </font>[/QUOTE]I agree 100% with the above quoted statement and would argue that this Traditional Baptist line of thinking draws a line at the position that the poster Michael Wrenn appears to be suggesting that any Southern Baptist may interpret the Bible to mean whatever he/she wants it to mean. The two sentences in the middle of the above quoted statement that I have italicized specifically speak against such a belief.

The only thing that I would wish to see better explained in the above quoted statement is the responsibility that we all share to ensure the teaching of sound doctrine and to stand against the teaching of false doctrine. As such if I had written the above quoted statement I would have added one more sentence to conclude:

However, as Bible believing Christians we are all honor bound to speak out against false teachings that derive from the failure to apply sound hermeneutical principles and poor exegesis of the biblical text resulting in the misinterpretation of the Word of God.

 

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, it does not address the concern that I raised when I asked you to provide a handful of quotes from Baptist Theologians from the 1600s to the 1900s that would support your eariler claim.

Again, in your opinion. However, I respectfully disagree and provided definitions of the two terms that support why I disagree.

I do feel pretty sure about the position that I maintain having completed five semesters of Church History and Baptist History combined.

My Baptist History professor, Dr. Emir Caner, certainly spoke highly of these men and he is clearly a Baptist conservative. The problem is not with these men or their statements, but in the way that modern liberal thinkers of twisted their original intent and beliefs to mean something else (just like they do to the Scriptures).

Being that we are not Roman Catholics I have no such documents to cite.

Like I said I want to be biblical, nothing more and nothing less. Your reference to the SBC of the 1970s indicates to me that what you consider to be "Traditional Baptist positions" are derived from the liberal Baptist scholarship of the 1960s and 1970s and not, in fact, on the Traditional Baptist positions held before modern/post-modern scholastic thought and liberal theology became so popular.

 

Below is a quote from Armitage regarding "Soul Liberty" and it clearly indicates something other than the position that Soul Liberty means that one can interpret the Bible to mean anything that ones sees fit for it to mean. The statement clearly uses the term "Soul Liberty" in connection with the rejection of the idea of a State enforced church or religion.

by Rev. Thomas Armitage D.D.

Taken from a book entitled, Baptist Doctrine, 1892.

[ December 12, 2003, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Bible-boy,

I am not a liberal; I am as opposed to the Alliance of Baptists, for instance, as I am to the current SBC.

 

rsr,

Thanks for the posts.

"Hence, no church, or class of men in the church, can step in between the personal investigation of the man and the Bible, to interpret it for him by authority." I believe the SBC has departed from this and other principles espoused by Armitage.

 

Micheal,

Has the current SBC leadership imposed doctrine on your local church?

The answer is NO.

All the SBC leadership has said with the approval of the messengers of the Convention is that if you're going to take a salary paid for by cooperative program dollars you're going to have to teach according to the BF&M 2000.

As a local Church Pastor this has not affected me and my ministry one iota except give me a lot more confidence that when I send a student to one of our seminaries I'm not going to have to worry about them being taught liberalism in disguise.

 

If a church wants to be part of the SBC, it seems only fair and reasonable that it and its members shouls subscribe to BF&M2K.

That said, I think (in my great humility )that BF&M2K is wrong on this point. Specifically on I Tim 2 quoted from earlier, proper exegesis on this passage is vital.I Tim 2 is dealing with the gnostic Eve cult at Ephesus-authentein , translated 'authority'in I Tim 2:12 has sexual connotations and has been found in secular Greek literature of the time to describe the techniques prostitutes used to seduce their clients. Nowhere else in the NT is authentein used; the usual word for 'authority', occurring countless times in the NT, exousia , is not used in I Tim 2. The whole passage is about the Scriptural refutation of the gnostic heresy Timothy was faced with, not about the prohibition on women teaching: the gnostics were saying "Hey,Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge first, so women as daughters of Eve are possessed of greater spiritual knowledge than men and therefore we women are superiorly qualified and entitled to teach men"; Paul says in response, "No, you're wrong; Eve wasn't endowed with knowledge first, she was deceived first, therefore those who assert this cannot teach or have authority but should learn first instead". That's what it is about. I read it this way, as a detailed reply to each of the heresy's points:-

1. Gnostic heresy: "women can have sexual authority over men and communicate their 'knowledge' via that means".

I Tim 2:12 (Paul and Holy Spirit)- "no, that's not true - women are not to 'teach' and have 'authority' in this manner."

2. GH: "Woman as being formed after man represents a superior development of the human species"

I Tim 2:13: "Adam was made first (implication being he was first in order of authority)"

3. GH: "Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge first and thus became possessed of the secret 'knowledge' referred to in 1"

I Tim 2:14:"No, Eve was deceived first b doing this"

4. GH: "Eve was raised up and exalted and to be worshipped (sexually) by Man because of the above achievement"

I Tim 2:15: "No, Eve fell because of this, but she (womankind) can be saved through the birth of Jesus and the salvation He brings to her - that's the only way out for her"

Otherwise the passage doesn't square with I Cor 11, references to Junias as an apostle, Philip's daughters prophesying etc

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Why?

Especially if a particular church existed before the SBC came into existence and already had an Articles of Faith in place 19 years before the SBC was formed.

 

Bible-boy,

I've reread my responses to you, and I want to say that I regret the tone of some of them. No excuses, although I've been attacked by so many Roman Catholics and fundamentalists on several message boards that I've gotten defensive.

I still disagree with you just as strongly, but from now on I'll attempt to do so in a more "agreeable" manner.

 

Why?

Especially if a particular church existed before the SBC came into existence and already had an Articles of Faith in place 19 years before the SBC was formed. </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your point, but if BF&M2K was agreed by the SBC in Convention, then that is the will of the majority of the Convention; the dissenting minority then have two choices - either submit to the will of the convention, or leave (they can either form a new association/ convention like the CBF did, or have no association at all and be completely Independent). That may seem a little harsh, but I don't think it is unfair; if we as congregations associate/'Convene' by agreement between us, then it is fair to say that when agreement can no longer be reached, then we should cease to associate in that manner or on that level.

Yours in Christ

Matt