I finally got to meet Paige the other day...

Daniel---I met Brother Patterson at one of our Mississippi Baptist Pastor's Conferences---I had heard him speak and thought to myself---"Suuuuuuure would like to meet that Theological "Einstein!!!!"

And I met him----of all places---in the Men's Restroom there at First Baptist, Jackson---where the Pastor's Conference was held!!! He and I were the only one's in the room at the time---and I was sayin' to myself---"Don't say nothin' stupid! Don't say nothin' stupid!!!"

"Brother Patterson! My name is David and I sure enjoyed your message this morning!!!"

"THANK YOU, BROTHER!!!!! I LOVE TO PREACH--DON'T YOU???"

"Sure do, Doctor Patterson!!!"

But of all places---in the men's bathroom!!! Well, better to be in the men's bathroom with Paige Patterson---than to be at a liberal seminary with some loon liberal professor---you reckon, huh, Daniel?????

Your Southern Baptist preachin' buddy,
Brother David

 

Dr. Patterson has been like a mentor to me in the ministry. I had the great privilege of attending Southeastern from '99-'01, when Southeastern was right in the midst of revival. God used Dr. Patterson as the point-man to bring to school back to the right, and from what I understand the school is still in the midst of theological and evangelical revival.

My friend had Dr. Patterson down to his church in Knoxville for a revival at the end of last year. He asked me if I wanted to go out and eat with them, and of course I said yes. We went to a seafood restaurant adjacent to the airport and we enjoyed some of the best Christian fellowship that I've ever known. We talked about his experiences and our experiences, and I even got to quiz him a little about his position on moral dilemmas (graded absolutism - just thought you might want to know). He ate it up because as you know, he enjoys a good debate. I asked him how he could believe in any understanding of absolutes in which an absolute didn't require obedience. He answered my question quite thoughtful and then proceeded to destroy some of my arguments.

He is a scholar, a servant, the dean of expository preachers, and a man after God's own heart. We can only pray that God raises up more men like him in days ahead who will resist the namby-pamby approach to church growth that is being soaked in like a sponge by many of our local churches. Like Dr. Patterson, may we all say "back to the Spirit of God and the Word of God!"

 

Doctor! Doctor! Doctor! Doctor! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

The only time Brother Criswell "slowed down" in his preachin'---was when they put him "Six feet under!!"

I read once---were somebody at FBC, Dallas approached Bro. Criswell and asked, "Doctor Criswell! They're havin' revival services at the church down the road here!! How come we never have revival services here at First, Dallas???"

To which Criswell's response was:

"My good man!! We have revival services 52 weeks out of the year! Every year! Year after year!!"

To which I say---I want my church to do THAT!!! That's the point I want to arrive at---revival 52 weeks out of the year!!!

 

I have met Paige on several occasions, and have heard him speak as well. He is a very engaging person and a good speaker.

I dont agree with some of his stances - mainly the women professors in the school of theology issue and the BWA issue. He has two great women professors now (History and Hebrew), SWBTS will be the loser when they are gone.

Paige is a brother in Christ and I pray for him.

 

I think it is very obvious why Dr. Patterson does not want women teaching theology and history at the seminary level. For starters, the great majority of seminary students are men. If one would not allow a woman to teach a mixed adult Sunday School class in church (as many SBC churches will not), why would we want a woman teaching our future preachers at the seminary level? I understand that Paul's teaching about female silence and submission was in the context of the local church in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, but I don't think anyone could convince me that those principles are only confined to the local church. In other words, it seems a bit hypocritical to have women teaching our future preachers when we have taken such unpopular stances as a Convention concerning the role of the woman in the home and the church. And, as one other poster mentioned, he is the President of the school - the hiring and firing of faculty is his perogative, just as the hiring and firing of ministerial staff should be the perogative of the Pastor in the local church (though I realize that is often not the case).

As for the BWA thing, if someone could tell me what the BWA does I would be more than happy to listen to discussions of continuing to fund them. Everytime someone at the convention level or even with the BWA tries to explain to us what the BWA does, it just sounds like a bunch of institutional hodge-podge with no real substance. It's quite obvious that the BWA has become nothing more than an all-inclusive club for any who claim to be Baptist. When the CBF was accepted into the BWA that was the last straw, and it certainly should've been. The CBF has made its existence leaching off of the SBC by claiming some SBC churches as CBF and by allowing the ministers of those churches to stay within the Annuity Board. Even the name of the organization is a deceptive attempt to confuse well-meaning SBCers into thinking that the CBF is the Cooperative Program. And I haven't even mentioned some of the debased theologies that abound with the CBF (Open Theism, egalitarianism, etc.). Southern Baptists did the right thing by defunding the BWA, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see other more conservative Baptist groups do the same thing. The 425K that we were giving to the BWA will go a long way in strengthing the Kingdom Agenda of the SBC - I'm grateful Paige has helped lead the way on this one.

Despite what others say about Paige, he is a soul-winner, a servant, and the premier theologian in SBC life - he is the perfect fit for the flagship seminary of the Convention.

 

Todd,

You said it yourself, your interpretation is the the bible teaches that women should not teach men in the church (although I disagree), the prohibition on women teaching men outside the local church is extra biblical, it is wrong and it is a bad move on the part of the Drs.Pattersons. His female history professor is one of the most liked professors on campus, she makes history come alive. She is well liked by her male colleagues as well - including many of the most conservative. As I said, SWBTS loss will be the gain of another institution, it is unfortunate for SWBTS however as Dr. bullock has poured her life into SWBTS. One thing I find funny is that they are going to have to have two men to do the Associate Dean job that she was doing alone!

As far as the BWA issue, you probably have your mind made up, but I would encourage you to check out their web site to see some of the great things they are doing around the world.

 

Jimmy, I would submit to you that the reason that a prohibition against women teaching men the Scriptures (or church history if that is the case) outside the local church is that such teaching outside the context of the local church was never God's ideal to begin with. The local church is to be the primary place of all Christian discipleship, with the family running a close second. I've thought on many occasions, "What would the Apostles think about all the discipleship that is happening outside the context of the local church?" For this very reason, we have superstar teachers and preachers who seem to be "too good" for the local church, but that is a different sermon for a different thread I suppose.

I say that to say this: If we are not to allow women to have teaching authority over men within the context of the local church (as Paul clearly states in 1 Tim. 2:11-15), then why would we allow them to do so outside of the church (and I'm speaking of Christian education you understand)? You may call that an "extra-biblical argument," but I don't think so. The principles stated by Paul in 1 Tim. 2:11-15 are those of authority regarding matters of theology, admitadly within the local church, but not necessarily restricted to the local church. For instance, can you imagine Paul closing out his letter to young Timothy, then going down to the Southern Baptist Seminary of Jerusalem and taking church history, theology, ethics, etc. from a woman? I hardly think so. Further, employing women to teach such classes to men seems to undercut Paul's instructions to Titus in Titus 2:5 where Paul admonished Titus to instruct the young women of the local church "to be discreet, chaste, homemakers , good, obedient to their own husbands , that the word of God may not be blasphemed." When SBC seminaries employ women to teach their men the things of God, aren't we saying that we believe that they're not needed in the home, where God says that they ought to be ideally? The problems with employing female professors in SBC and state-funded institutions are a-plenty, and these are just a couple of reasons why.

As for the BWA, I will check their website, but I really don't believe that it will make any difference. How is the BWA being activiely involved in winning the world for Christ? In what ways are they holding high the doctrinal standards that we as SBCers have been struggling for years now to establish? Why would we want to continue to financially support an organization that we are in complete disagreement with both doctrinally and practically? These are questions that I have heard no one on the other side of the argument give an answer to.

Have a blessed Sunday.

 

How about providing bibles for believers in Cuba, training pastors in formerly Eastern block countries and helping to build churches and schools literally around the world as a few examples.

When did the SBC come against religious freedom, disaster relief and being a voice in favor of basic human rights for the defenseless millions around the world? I think these are efforts that they support since they still have branches (if you will) that do these things. They just seem to have to be in charge or so it seems?!

The real reason is that for leaving is the acceptence of the CBF and the willingness of the BWA to "allow" women pastor's.

Nevermind that the SBC was a "splinter" group itself at one time. And of the driving reasons for that split was not over something like which version of the BF&M is being used, but over if it was ok to own another human-being or not! If the women had stayed at home like you suggest, the SBC would be radically less effective in the things they try and do. Lottie Moon offering for an example started by the Women's Missionary Union.

Oddly enough I am one that supports the SBC leaving the BWA. Think it would be better to see the BWA move on without them then continually fighting over the same things and accomplishing less for the Kingdom of God.

 

So I assume you would mean that Dr. Patterson should give his resignation from the seminary.

 

And yet Todd, you forget the example of Priscilla who taught theology to Appolos in the first recorded seminary!

 

Todd,

On another matter - you make the agument that women should be taking care of the home. In the first place, why do you think that they are not? just because they are not home from 8-5? Examples from scriptures of a Godly women have them out selling their wares.

Secondly - the Pattersons do not have problems with women in the music school, or School of Educational Ministries - just in the school of theology. If one were to be consistent shouldnt every woman who is employed in the SBC be terminated? Or should only inconvienent women be terminated?

 

You forgot to mention that Priscilla AND AQUILLA, were teaching Appolos.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Both men and women are called to teach each other.

 

We have a very clear example that Priscilla was involved in the process of teaching Apollos:

Do you think that Priscilla was in rebellion against God or opposed to the practice of the early church? Do you detect disapproval in Luke's account?

It seems pretty obvious that Priscilla taught in conjuction with her husband - and the most interesting thing is that Priscilla is mentioned before her husband in this passage.

 

And I haven't missed your snide comments and false accusations.

 

BB, to assert that Priscilla was actively involved in the teaching from that passage is a stretch at best. If she was present when the teaching was taking place, it would have obviously been under the authority of her husband, whom Paul clearly said was to be head over the wife (Eph. 5:22ff).

Further, I never said that I was against education outside of the local church - all I said is that it is not God's ideal for discipleship. Yet, because the local church has fallen behind in so many areas of Christian discipleship, I firmly believe that the seminary is an outstanding alternative in Christian higher education. In fact, I am a graduate of one of our six seminaries (SEBTS - Class of '01). Please don't imply that I'm against the seminaries because that's not what I said.

As for women being allowed to teach in other areas outside of theology, I personally would be uncomfortable with a woman teaching in any area of the seminary that has to do with the "handling" of the Word of God. Paul clearly said that women were not to have such authority over men - in or outside of the local church (1 Tim. 2:11-15, Eph. 5:22). And such was not just Paul's opinion, but it was grounded in theology (see the 1 Tim. 2 passage). I don't know exactly what SWBTS's current policy is, but I feel sure that Dr. Patterson would be very agreeable with the above statement. I have no problem with a female teaching an English class or a diction class or something of that nature, but the Scriptures are being violated when a woman sets out to teach the Scriptures to men.

Further, I never said that it was always a sin for a woman to work outside the home. Personally, my wife and I have chosen for her to never work outside the home (at least as long as we have children at home). And why? Because my wife realizes that being a mother is the highest calling in the land - it's not a burden, but a blessing (Ps. 127:3). The Scripture never gives a strict prohibition against a woman working outside the home, but God's ideal is clearly for a women to be a "homemaker" (Titus 2:5). If someone does not like that, then they have a spiritual issue they must resolve with God and His Word, not me.

Finally, as for the BWA thing, my point was made quite clearly by a previous poster. The BWA is very involved in social action and "religious work," but they aren't nearly as involved in intentional evangelism as they should be. And why? Because there are now more groups in the BWA who don't believe in intentional evangelism than ever before, and the CBF just happens to be one of them. By allowing the CBF into the BWA, the BWA was sending a clear message: Doctrinal integrity is now no longer important for us. It may not be important to them, but it is important to Southern Baptists, and that is why the SBC is making the right choice by leaving the BWA. If they want to keep endorsing female pastors and setting aside doctrinal accountability, they are free to do so, but the SBC doesn't need to condone it.