Dr. Patterson's View of Women (Straight From the Horse's Mouth)

I've seen several folks post messages about Dr. Patterson's theological understanding of women here on the Board that seem to offer of skewed view of what the SWBTS President actually believes. For those who are interested in the truth, it is printed here for your enjoyment and edification.

FORT WORTH, Texas (BP)--There were rumors that women would not be allowed to take classes with men at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary when Paige Patterson became president just over a year ago. In fact, there were rumors that women would be drummed out of the theology school altogether.

Patterson said he knew he would have to speak to the rumors one day. “But I sort of enjoyed watching the rumor mill work for a year,” the Texas seminary president said in chapel Oct. 19. “Every once and awhile I’ve been known to feed one and watch how far it goes.”

Patterson said he purposefully scheduled a discussion of the issue of women in ministry because others often misrepresent his views on the subject, calling such misrepresentation a “diatribe and lie of the left.”

“No Bible-believing, evangelical Christian and follower of Jesus Christ has ever believed anything else other than that women are equal with men,” Patterson said.

Patterson said that the story of creation in Genesis 2 and the Apostle Paul’s words to his young protégé Timothy in 1 Timothy 2 demonstrate the equality of women in creation and their assignment in the body of Christ.

In Genesis 2, God paraded all of creation in front of the man he had created and watched as Adam named the creatures. But God said it was “not good under any circumstance” that there was not another special creation like the man, Patterson said.

“By the time all those animals had been named and viewed, it was apparent to Adam that each one had a suitable helper. He was the only one in the world that was alone. God was preparing his heart for a wonderful blessing that was about to happen to him,” Patterson said.

God caused Adam to sleep deeply and then He took part of Adam’s “side” -- not necessarily his “rib” -- to fashion the first woman. Patterson said the word used to describe the creation of the first woman means to “beautifully and artistically construct.”

“I wish I had $5 for Southwestern Seminary every time a well-meaning preacher or Sunday School teacher said it, but it is not true that women have one more rib than men,” Patterson gibed. “If I am in a car accident and lose one arm, it doesn’t mean all of my kids are going to be born one-armed. The genetic code is in place.”

Beyond what is contained in Scripture, Patterson said there is no way to know for sure what Adam thought of his helpmate when he awoke. “What do you think he said? We don’t have it all recorded here folks. But we have what is necessary for faith and salvation and our understanding of creation.”

Genesis 2:23 records Adam’s description of Eve as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, and she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.” Patterson said that Adam was saying, “Whatever it is I am, there is another one ... with certain notable improvements.”

“Every woman, like every man, is made in the imago Dei, in the image of God. Every woman has the right and responsibility to come to God for herself. Every woman, like every man, has the right to study God’s Word and apply it to her life. Every woman is fully equal and quite a lot of them more than equal to any man I ever saw,” Patterson said.

Patterson asked if the equality of women with men means that a woman can do anything she wants to do in the church.

For the answer, he turned to 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Patterson described the passage as “one the most hated in all of Scripture” because it runs counter to an American culture that drives women to succeed in business and other endeavors while spending less time concentrating on family.

“What can a woman do in the church?” Patterson asked after reading the passage. “Anything she wants to. Anything she wants to that is not expressly prohibited in Scripture.”

The portion of the passage referring to submissiveness drives many people away because they assume submissiveness indicates a lower order of being, Patterson said. But there are examples in society that disprove such thinking, he said, noting, for example, that in an encounter with a police officer, he and the officer would be equal before the Lord.

“However, he is above me,” Patterson said. “God gave him an assignment that affects me and made him a minister of God to correct my evil ways. I am obligated to submit to him, not because he is a superior human being, but because his assignment from God is such that it is.”

Patterson said the same principle applies to the relationship of children and their parents. The children are fully equal to their parents as human beings, he said, but placed by God under their parents’ supervision and authority so they will grow into godly, respectable citizens.

“It is in the obedience that we all have to somebody that we learn how to obey God. That is why God placed those positions of authority all throughout society to begin with,” he said.

Jesus exemplified this principle during His earthly ministry, Patterson noted. “Ontologically, the Son is always equal with the Father, but from eternity past He is positionally subordinate to the Father and so shall He ever be. If it is not too good for Jesus, it is not too good for us. Every human being on the face of the earth is accountable to somebody.... We are told to submit ourselves to those to whom He has made us accountable.”

The same rule, Patterson said, is to be applied in the body of Christ, the church. Of the many attempts to explain what the Apostle Paul meant when he wrote the passage about the submission and silence of women, Patterson said, “Oftentimes, the answer of the evangelical world is that a woman cannot serve as a senior pastor.”

“Would somebody please find that in the text? It is not in the text. That is not said. There is no mention of occupation in this text at all. This is not a question of occupation. It is a question of an assignment from God, in this case that a woman not be involved in a teaching or ruling capacity over men,” Patterson said. “It is a prohibition of a woman teaching or ruling over a man in the church,” which would necessarily mean that women cannot serve as pastors, he said.

The words of the apostle do not make any man a dictator, a supreme sovereign or a “be-all, end-all,” Patterson said. The words mean that men are responsible for the spiritual well-being of the home, he said.

“Wives are told, ‘Submit yourself.’ No one makes you do it. That’s a voluntary matter,” Patterson said.

“It means voluntarily to line up in the right order that God has given, and the husband is loving his wife sacrificially as much as Jesus Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it, so that all the husband can think of is, ‘Honey, what can I do for you? What can I do to serve you? How can I make your life better?’ And all the time she is submitting herself to her husband and saying, ‘You just lead and, honey, I’ll follow.’ Would you tell me how any kind of fight could develop in that situation? It will just be heaven on earth. That’s all. God knew it and He wants the church to be an example of it. That is the reason He said ‘no’ to a woman having a ruling or teaching position over a man.”

Patterson said that revisionists approach the passage in Timothy and say, “Yes, that’s what it says, but.” Others, who see the passage as providing commentary on practices limited to a specific culture, believe it was meant only for that time. However, these overlook the inherent connection to the created order referenced in Genesis 2, Patterson said.

But the passage is very clear, Patterson said. The passage does not mean that a woman cannot say anything in church. “In that case, we would have Paul contradicting Paul. There is an appropriate time for women to pray and prophesy,” he said. Instead, the injunction for women to learn in “silence” means to have an attitude of meekness, respectability and godliness.

The role of women in the church, Patterson said, is bound up in the enigma Paul wrote about when he said that women would be “saved in childbearing” in 1 Timothy 2:15.

“She will find her greatest contribution and impact through the children she bears,” Patterson said. He said that many women do not view rearing children as an honorable profession. Many women who fill out paperwork write their occupation as “homemaker” in small letters.

“Ladies, the highest and noblest calling of God is mother and grandmother. Equal to men, yes, but do what God has called you to do,” Patterson said. “Write it in bold letters with a big magic marker.”

Patterson said he believes a seminary education is perfectly suitable for women. “Any woman who loves Jesus is welcome at this school. We have even established a full women’s studies program here. We will raise a generation of women committed to doing it God’s way. They will shake the world in ways a stumbling old preacher never could.”
--30--

This is one of the best brief explanations of a woman's ontology and her role in the kingdom of God that I have ever seen. Especially insightful were the analogies of a police officer/citizen and a parent/child relationship. Of course, those analogies illustrate the relationship between the Father and the Son, which of course is the relationship that the NT looks to as it explains the value of women and their place within the kingdom of God. I'd be interested to know if there are still any out there who think that Dr. P. is still "too narrow" or "heretical" in his view of women.

 

Paul, you say you don't disagree, but you give no biblical reason why...pretty weak disagreement. As for comparing a women's presence in a meeting with men to women having teaching authority over men, clearly you are comparing apples and oranges. Please come up with something from the Scripture that is in clear contrast to what Dr. P. has presented and then maybe we can have a discussion.

GB, yours was another characteristic post. You didn't try to argue from the Bible why you would disagree with Dr. P. The best you could do was to offer Dr. Bullock as an example, but you and I don't even know all the details of her story. As for your long list of other quasi-accusations, they really bear no impact upon the question at hand. My question was, "Where is Dr. P's view of women unbiblical or heretical?"

By the way, pre-millenial dispensationalism has been the predominant understanding of eschatological matters in Southern Baptist life for at least the last 50 years. The only amillenialists left that I know of are older, moderate pastors and those who have never given any serious study to Rev. 19-20. Therefore, I don't think you're being completely accurate when you say that dispensationalism is not a historic Baptist doctrine. Besides, if it were a biblical understanding of the last times, does it really matter if it is the historical position or not? Are we more concerned with preserving historical theology or preaching accurate theology? I hope we all choose the later.

Let's try to stick to the issue of Dr. P's comments about women in ministry please.

 

Paul, my apologies...I simply misread your last post. I'm sorry about that.

As to your question, I certainly think that a woman can offer leadership in a meeting that men (in this case male teachers) are present in. Yet, the Scripture is clear that when it comes to women teaching men, that is against the plan of God in the home and the local church. I think you bring up a good point about what would happen if a potential conflict should a matter over God's Word arise in such a meeting. Personally, that is why I would prefer a male in all ministerial staff positions. Yet, I wouldn't force the issue, especially since your question is one that probably wouldn't bear too much weight on the issue at hand.

 

GB, I'm really beginning to lose more and more respect for you as a poster here on the Board for the following reasons:

1. Everything you say is based on your own experiences and biases. You need to at least try to be objective without telling three stories from personal experience that you think make your case.

2. You often dodge the issue at hand. This is your second post on the thread, and you have yet to deal directly with Patterson's comments. Thus, you are really just taking up space on this thread when it appears that you need to start another thread on dispensationalism.

3. You claim that Dr. P. is not a theologian. Clearly, this proves that you know nothing of the man whose views we are attempting to discuss. Do you honestly think that the world's largest evangelical seminary would call a man to be its President who has not demonstrated himself as a careful theologian? Your claim about Dr. P. is really quite foolish. I saw him debate Dr. Stanley Hauerwas (Head of Religion at Duke and Time Magazine's 2001 "Theologian of the Year"), and he won the debate overwhelmingly. But to you, that will prove nothing. Because you don't agree with him, he's not a theologian. That's dishonest and distasteful.

Either objectively speak to the issue at hand or go and start a different thread somewhere else please. And by the way, you claim (unbelievably) that all historical theology is absolutely accurate. Arianism is historical theology...is it accurate? Modalism is historical theology...is it accurate? Southern Baptists historically believed that slavery was an acceptable practice...were they accurate? Clearly, your point is without any merit - just because a piece of theology is historical doesn't "absolutely" mean it is accurate. Bless God, I don't just want historical theology, I want accurate theology. Frankly, I'm starting to wonder if you desire the same.

 

I ask you GB, if you walked in your house and found an intruder beating your wife, do you think you would be entitled to a "violent protest?"

Further, this is your third post with no reply to the original message. Time for you to start another thread.

 

Jimmy, you may not agree with it, but I think comparing the school of theology with the school of music is like comparing apples and oranges in many ways. While those within the School of Music will deal with matters of theology from time to time, those within the School of Theology deal with those matters daily. And think about it: If we wouldn't allow a woman to have authority over a man when teaching the Word of God in a local church, then why would we allow it in a School of Theology? You may not agree with that, but at least admit that Dr. P as the school's President has the right to make that decision.

After reading what God's Word has to say about the position of women in the home and the local church, I think we tred on serious ground when we begin to allow women to have authority over men in the teaching of God's Word - regardless of where it is taught. Further, do you think there are many conservative Baptist churches who want a Pastor who was taught theology by a woman? These are all questions that Patterson had to consider, and I'm sure he sought the face of God when he began to make some hard decisions.