Reviewing the Gender Debate in the SBC
Posted byI believe it was back in 1999 when I was a MDiv student at Southwestern when I read, then President of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, Clyde Glazner state that the 1998 article addition to the Baptist Faith and Message dealing with the family was “Neanderthal.” To this day, I can remember walking to my car after reading that statement in the Baptist Standard and looking across the street in wonder at the church where Glazner pastored thinking how could a man remain a Southern Baptist if he felt that way about an article of faith adopted by the convention.
Dr. Thomas White and Jason Duesing have authored a new White Paper for BaptistTheology.org dealing with the gender debate of the last 45 years in the SBC. In Neanderthals Chasing Bigfoot? The State of the Gender Debate in the Southern Baptist Convention they recount Glazner’s statement and other happenings surrounding the issue of gender in the SBC. The fourteen page document is excellent and well worth the read. Below is part of the conclusion.
In an age of increasingly militant feminism, curbed and confined masculinity, and general confusion as to the day-to-day functions and roles of men and women in society, the churches must come to see that the price of maintaining confessional orthodoxy is vigilance. A defensive or passive reaction to the cultural influence on our churches and homes is no longer an option. With regard to the gender debate, this means that the churches must work through and apply that which they have claimed as biblical. So while there is large agreement that women cannot function biblically in the role of a pastor, church members should ask their pastor how 1 Timothy 2 applies to their Sunday School class, to authoritative deacon bodies, or to other areas in which there is gender confusion. In these areas many have yet to stake their ground.
As in any debate, the ground that one fails to claim will be claimed by the opposition; while many churches affirm the complementarity of their confession, they have quietly given up the front of practical application in the lives of their church members. Often the otherwise conservative pastors return to the “practical outweighs theological” training they received in seminary before the changes in the 1990s. The irony of this is that the changes in the agencies were brought about by a grassroots movement of the churches; now that the agencies have returned, the churches have begun calling pastors who have received the training the churches
worked so hard to reestablish.Finally, for those seeking to find biblical teaching about the complementary differences between men and women in SBC agencies and in many SBC churches, the state of the gender debate is favorable. Whether this favor still exists for the agencies and churches of the future remains to be seen. The time has come for Southern Baptists to establish whether or not they desire to be thorough-going complementarians or return to the “practical outweighs theological” methodology of the egalitarians. The brakes have been applied, but the next generation of Southern Baptist families and churches are asking, “Where do we go from here?”
Are Southern Baptists ancient Neanderthals chasing a mythical Bigfoot? After surveying the past and present of the debate over the complementary differences between the roles of men and women, a fair-minded person should agree that the only thing modern-day Southern Baptists have been chasing is a living and active Bible.
26 Comments
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
The question for our cooperating convention of Baptist churches may not be “practical outweighs theological” any more, but “traditional outweighs theological?” Conservative Baptists come out on both sides of this question because people who have looked at the issue in depth disagree.
For one group or the other to determine that the other guys have it all wrong would be the most liberal reaction of all. Worse still would be for those on one side or the other to write off those with whom they disagree.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Brother Robin,
The subject of gender and roles within the church continues to be a challenge for men and women as they discover the unity that the Spirit provides for the church. I believe the reason for the difficulty is due primarily to a lack of biblical knowledge which leads to poor biblical doctrine or at least skewed biblical doctrine.
The “family” article of the BF&M that has been referenced is a bit wordy and clumsy in the last two sentences of the third paragraph, but it is not unbiblical in its substance. It is just not presented clearly. But, you are absolutely right to say that the Neanderthal statement makes no sense at all.
As I read through the paper by Duesing and White, it seemed that they were a bit apprehensive as to the state of the complimentarian resurgence since the change of direction during the 90’s. They seem to describe it as fragile, yet building and expanding throughout the seminary cultures. The article seemed to be almost a case built for the defense of Patterson’s past confrontations at SWBTS.
As far as the maturity of the churches…..I believe as a church family becomes serious and accurately teaches the doctrine set forth for the body of Christ in Ephesians 4 and 5, the family and the church will flourish in the unity governed by the Holy Spirit. One other thing that came to mind as I read the article was the author’s attention to the lack of men being involved in the church. Unfortunately, the leadership design within most Baptist fellowships can run the risk of hindering the development of leadership since the “deacon” is confused as leadership in many of the congregations.
Thanks for the article…always fun to read.
Blessings,
Chris
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
There are two places where biblical teaching and our culture are diverging most rapidly – homosexuality and the role of women at home and church. What the Bible teaches is offensive to our culture.
We ARE neanderthals in one sense. Our views are becoming more and more rare, outdated. Some, even among the church, seem to believe that our disapproval of homosexual behavior and our belief in male headship at home and church are on the endangered species list.
But we cannot seek popularity in culture. We must preach and practice biblical truth regardless of how our culture reacts.
I believe that before I reach retirement age, churches may very well have to choose between holding the line on these teachings and our tax-exempt status. If we continue to disapprove homosexual behavior and require that pastors be men, we will be declared discriminatory and will lose our exempt status.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Dave,
Very salient comment. I hope Southern Baptists have enough integrity that we are unwilling to compromise Scripture, even if it does cost us our tax exemption status.
Ron P.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 am
Dave,
Very good points….and I see your angle on ‘Neanderthal. I wonder if that was Glazner’s view as well?
You are right concerning the peculiarity of the Christian both in word and deed. Hopefully we are faithful to continue to teach that peculiarity.
Blessings,
Chris
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 am
My first question – are authoratative deacon bodies even remotely scriptural. I would say no, the only function we see deacons in the scriptures are servant roles. The churches that I have been part of over the years that had authoratative deacon bodies were the most fouled up churches I have ever been in. By the way, I am a deacon and have been for about 20 years and would not serve on a deacon body that thought that they romotely “ran” the church.
Second question – our seminaries have many women in the MDiv program, we also have many women who are studying to be music, education and youth ministers. If we were to follow the logic presented here, shouldnt we stop accepting women into our SBC schools – exept perhaps for childrens ministers.
Last question – many women teach mixed sunday school classes under the authority of the pastor, the classic example being Mrs. Criswell.
I see this as just one more example of narrowing of parameters – and driving younger pastors and leaders out of the SBC. these younger folks have been raised in a much more egalitarian society. I think that they would agree with not having women as senior pastors – but to go further than that will continue to drive them away
Jim Champion
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Jim,
I signed “Time to Change” because I think the IMB policies on baptism and PPL were not only unwise, they were also unbiblical, or at least not biblically mandated. We separated unnecessarily.
I view this differently. To me, the Bible is clear about male headship at home and church. So, on this issue I am willing to draw a line.
You are right that there are some issues that need to be worked out. Can women teach mixed Sunday School classes? Can women be in ministerial staff positions?
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:00 am
Dave
I dont necessarily dispute the concept of male headness – nor of women’s neckness, you know the idea that the neck turns the head wherever it wants to
But I dont buy that women cannot teach men or that men cannot learn from women. I have seen some fantastic women sunday school teachers over the years who taught mixed classes from high school on up. This brings up another issue all together as once we start splitting hairs where do we stop – when do women cease to be able to teach boys – nursery, grade school, high school, college – and where is the scriptural justification.
There are just too many examples of women teaching or exerting “authority” in the scriptures for me to go beyond the limitation on Senior Pastor.
I will ask you once again about the seminary issue. dont you think the logical extension of Robin’s post would be to exclude women from our seminaries?
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:17 am
Brother Jim,
I think you are accurate in you biblical understanding of “deacon” and the problems that are prevalent within deacon bodies throughout the SBC. I have seen a trend to try and correct the blatant theological misunderstanding of the deacon, and that has been encouraging and profitable for those churches that have began to correct such misunderstanding of how the church functions. I do believe this is a significant area of concern for many churches that have yet to even realize it. Congregational polity, when executed in an unbiblical manner can only exacerbate the error.
Your second point is an interesting one…. I believe that an MDiv in the SBC seminary culture is a good “first step” in beginning to understand and prepare one to think about ministry. It by no means qualifies men or women in ministry, but it can be helpful. In some cases in the not too distant past, the seminaries were not the best place to learn biblical doctrine and were at times detrimental to the maturity of the believer. Thankfully that seems to be changing. So, I think sending our ladies to the seminaries for education is marvelous, but we should realize the limited nature of the seminary and not depend on it to qualify leaders. Qualification for leadership in the church is with the church and that is where the most important biblical education and dives into biblical doctrine should take place. To put that in a “dirt-biking” analogy. Seminaries are kind of like a “Honda CRF100”…a lot of people are able to ride and enjoy …..where the church is kind of like a “Honda CRF450 R” where the meat of the word is lived out day to day in power and with authority.
Blessings,
Chris
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 am
Chris
So we take precious CP dollars and spend them on a huge segment of the population that we are not going to let minister in an area that they feel that God has led them.
I guess we are giving the Methodists some wonderfully Baptist educated women – perhaps we will convert them to being Baptist by our stealth WIM “Women in Ministry”
But going back to the logical conclusions of robin’s post – women seem to be excluded from every ministry area except perhaps childrens ministry – is this really what you all are looking for?
I will say again, that if that is what you all are looking for, that you will not find a faster way to alienate a large number of our younger folks – ministers and lay alike.
But, if that is truly what you would like, I would suggest a further ammendment to the BFM so everyone knows where they stand as opposed to one agency at a time’s trustees pushing this through ala the IMB with PPL and Baptism
Jim
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 am
Brother Jim,
I would say quite the opposite. I would say spend the money and educate the men and women in the best and most efficient way possible. We desperately need the Priscilla’s and Aquila’s working within the context of our churches to the fullest extent allowed by the Spirit of God.
For instance, we have gifted women in our church that “speak” and “teach”, yet have not to this date demanded any authority to lead. I think that is because they are able to understand what the Spirit has said to the churches and they are in response willing to build unity among the believers in the congregation as are the Pastoral Leadership. As the bible is rightly divided, the Spirit of God leads both men and women to a unifying understanding of the body of Christ and it function in the world. For us, “Women Elders in a Pastoral role” has never been an issue, simply because it is absent from the biblical text.
Blessings,
Chris
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Chris
I would think that you and I are probably in about 99% agreement. I was trying to take the authors words to thier logical conclusion – esp in relation to their call for no women teaching mixed sunday school classes, or serving as a minister (other than perhaps childrens minister)
I agree with not having female elders in a pastoral role – if by that you mean no senior pastors, and to be quite frank I have never served with a female deacon – although our deacon wives put us deacon’s to shame time and time again when it comes to our family ministries – actually our family ministries are blessed by our deacon wives.
On a leadership issue – the best stewardship, and personnell chair’s I have ever worked with were women – something about that attention to detail thing!
After reading this “white paper” I am reminded again that our leaders in nashville and the seminaries may pontificate on an issue from time to time – but as White and Duesing point out, the rubber hits the road in the churches – where ministry is actually performed on a daily basis.
Jim
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
After much debate, our church restored the office of deacon to its scriptural role (servant, not leader) and we now have men and women deacons. We also restored the concept of plural eldership which is limited to men.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
You’re kidding me, right? We really want to end the “gender confusion” in Sunday School classes? I guess that means that we need to stop all females from teaching a class where men are present, or teenage boys, or older boy children.
That is a “neanderthal” idea.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Chris,
As I read your comments, I cannot help but think you have at least somewhat misunderstood the concept of leadership. You say (in your #11), “We have gifted women in our church that ’speak’ and ‘teach’, yet have not to this date demanded any authority to lead.” That at least suggests that leadership is something that is authorized, as by the occupation of or investment in an office. There was a time that I would have agreed with that definition; but from the perspective of my now 55 years on this earth and 22+ years in the pastorate, I have concluded that leaders lead because they are leaders, not because they have some office given, won, or thrust upon them. The “office,” at most, validates what a leader is already doing. Matthew 7: 28-29 says, “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” The Pharisees and Saducees had the offlices, but the people recognized that for all that, they failed as leaders. And even without recognizing the full identity of Jesus, they knew He was a significant leader, because He was leading them, though wiothout any humanly-bestowed “office.” I would suggest that although these women in your church “have not demanded any authority to lead,” they are indeed leading, and doing it in the most Biblical possible way of servanthood. I’d be interested in your take on this.
While I’m disagreeing, I must also point out one state in the white paper quotation with which I disagree. The statement in question is “the ‘practical outweighs theological’ training they [con servative pastors] received in seminary before the changes in the 1990s” which is found in the second (quoted) paragraph. I am one whose theological education predates the CR. I received no such training; I never had a professor who made any such statement, nor one who I believe implied any such thing. The purpose of theological education back then was to (1) to teach the student how to make valid (and yes, Biblical) conclusions, and (2) to expose the student to a variety of opinions, in order for him (or her) to come to a conclusion and to own his/her own opinion. Although I have no firsthand experience with post-CR theological education, my understanding of the difference is from an SEBTS publication shortly after Dr. Page Patterson became its president. As I recall it, he said that hey would expose the student to a variety of theological opinions, then explain why “that dog won’t hunt.” I take that to mean they teach a particular perspective, which I can only conclude means the student is less taught how to learn and come to his/her own God-sanctioned understandings than to believe the opinions of his/her teachers. I assume you are have a post-CR education, so I would really like to hear your perspective on this.
John
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Okay… You are definitely going to consider me a “Neanderthal”, but after reading what Paul tells Timothy and Titus, I am unable to sit under the teaching of a woman. I get uneasy and squirmish, not able to sit still. My skin sweats and I feel like I am being unfaithful to the Word of Truth.
Teaching the children? God said that’s okay.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Where did God say it was OK for women to teach children in a Sunday School class?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Brother John,
A lot to answer there my friend….I give it a go and see where we land.
First,…the concept I have of leadership is not unlike what you have stated. I too believe that leaders are not elected as such, but actually possess the gifting and over time accumulate the skill to lead and move the church biblically. In the comment I made about our women that minister within the context of our church,…they do lead in a great many aspects of ministry, yet their understanding of unity (Ephesians 4 & 5) is that authority in the church….that is the authority not given “by man”, but authority taught by the Spirit given “to man” is important in the overall health of the body of Christ. So when the Apostle Paul encourages Titus to appoint Elders in every city…..
Titus 1:5-9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, (6) namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (7) For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, (8) but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, (9) holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
So far….. the women in our church would take that to mean that Titus was looking for a qualified man to lead and oversee every church, both to extort in sound doctrine being able to refute those who are not teaching sound doctrine. In other words,….if these women, who are as capable of dividing the word of God in a right manner as much as I, ran into a situation where other men or women were not teaching sound doctrine….they would look to me “the Elder” to remedy the situation biblically. I am more than happy to do this, so that these gifted women can continue to teach and lead in ministry. That would make them wise not weak.
Secondly,
Although I do not really have any axes to grind with Dr. Patterson and I do have respect for his tenaciousness, I do not agree with him on many of his “approaches” to ministry. I think our disagreement (Patterson and me) is based in our slight differences in theology and understanding of some aspects of “justification” and more aspects of “sanctification”. I think both he and I have a decent grasp on “glorification”.
So, I believe you are right to say,…and I do not believe Patterson would disagree so much,…that he wants the students he represents to understand his point of view. I don’t think he disguises that one bit. Again, I have great respect for his tenaciousness and his willingness to jump into the fire and his willingness to try an lead in the SBC, but I think he may at times depend upon “emotion” and “experience” as a guiding hermeneutic …. where scripture clearly moves another direction.
As for me …I’m a quasi-CR educated kind of guy. I enjoy reading and studying as much bible and theology as I can handle ….. That’s why I enjoy a good honest blog site…. where guys are not afraid to help me understand things a little better.
Blessings,
Chris
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Jim,
If seminaries exist ONLY for the purpose of preparing pastors, then I might say that entrance should be limited to men only. But our seminaries have much broader purposes than that.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with a woman teaching theology (or Hebrew) to men in a seminary. But obviously, others do.
I believe that over the next 10 years, the whole “Women in Ministry” issue will be the major source of dispute in the SBC.
Even those of us who agree on the big picture have lots of disagreements on the particulars.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I think the SBC needs to start putting there money to something other than a bunch of men sitting in a room scratching themselves………don’t you think? There are bigger issues that our money should go to.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am
I think sometimes part of the problem is that when women want to study and talk about theology, it is presumed that they want to be pastors or hold some position of authority. It is each believer’s responsibility, male or female, to study God’s Word and seek to understand doctrinal issues. A woman doing so does not mean necessarily that she is seeking to pastor or preach. It simply means that she is taking seriously her responsibility as a follower of Christ.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Chris,
Thanks for the thoughtful answer. Just a couple of brief thoughts: first, what I wrote was in no way intended as a personal attack on Dr. Patterson. Whether I like him, respect him, or agree with him (or not, on various issues), I simply referenced him as the source of my information on post-CR theological education. I think that attitude does stand in rather stark contrast to what I found as the attitude of pre-CR theiological education, at least if it is generally true rather than the stance of two particular individuals (myself & PP). Second, I respect your understanding of leadership, but even where we agree, it seems that you draw much more distinct lines around the concepts of “leadership” and “authority” than do I. We are each products of our environment, education (formal and otherwise), experience, and perhaps most importantly, our personalities. One of my pet theories is that those, especially the later, play a larger role in the belief systems we adopt than the conscious and articulated reasons with which we justify our beliefs. Hence two Christians can arrive at vastly different conclusions both using the same source (here, the Bible) and the same sort of reasoning; but because of different personalities, etc., we arrive at a slightly different conclusion. Thanks!
John
June 4th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Brother John,
I appreciate your comments,….. I too am not targeting Patterson whatsoever, but was simply trying to point out that I do not think he apologizes for his convictions even when his convictions may not line up with a thorough exegesis of scripture. I can’t fault the man for being forthright and being convicted, but like all of us, we have our blind spots of conviction and a multitude of warts. Therefore, we should all remain teachable.
In light of our “authority” discussion….. I truly believe that all authority is given to Christ as head of the church. (Matthew 28), and that his word commands that the church function as the Holy Spirit informs those that are called out in obedience to His commands (male and female. So for instance, as I read the most direct translation of the text that I can find, and God declares that men are to oversee (shepherd) the church (called out ones) on earth, then who I am to “not” believe the declaration is true, whether I be a male or a female. The declaration “is” the authority, not “my” understanding of the declaration. I’ll be the first to admit that some will try and work the text to their benefit, and some will try to make “their” understanding of the text the authoritative word. I try to submit to the fact that the word is what it is, I should simply study, preach and teach the text with as much excellence as possible in much prayer and trembling.
I will also be the first to admit that many Overseers that have been voted into a position at a “church” (men) and they abuse their understanding of authority. That many of those Overseers, instead of preaching the gospel of God, …. Quickly become more comfortable with telling people “how” to live and giving them “a list of things” to do and, …some will go as far as to think that everything they do is led by the Holy Spirit. That is unfortunately hogwash and arrogance.
So, with respect to men or women given the charge to oversee the church…I would be the first one to want to know if the sacred text has “declared that women are to oversee the church”. Is there one text in the entire bible where the church is instructed by God to have “women” oversee the body of Christ? I’m not talking about, leading, teaching, instructing men in languages, if they are talented enough, smarter than, better equipped, etc. …. The question is….. “Is it the declaration of God that women should oversee the church?” “ Is that the charge of God?”
We (both men and women in the church) should be able to answer that question.
John, thanks for working this one through with me.
Blessings,
Chris
June 4th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Brother John,
forgive my word scrambling at times…hopefully it made some sense.
Blessings,
Chris
June 4th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I, as a “woman in ministry” and recent recipient of an M.Div from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, am so very glad that the churches of the SBC decided against egalitarianism ten years ago. The love of and adherence to Scripture is one of the qualities I wholeheartedly appreciate about the SBC. I do not believe Scripture allows for women to be senior pastors or elders.
I would agree with what Chris said in #9 concerning seminary training. I have received a wonderful education and tools for ministry; however, I have never served in an official capacity. I have all the theory but little of the practice.
God has not called me to minister to children. There is a disconnect between the children and I in my teaching. Again, I have lots of theory about how children think and about how one ought to teach them. But I have been wholly unsuccessful in my attempts to teach them the Bible so that their lives are changed. I’m not saying I dislike children; I do like them. One day, I hope to be married and be a mom; thus, in the parenting form, I’ll have to minister to children- my own. But I do not believe that children’s ministry is the area in which God has called and gifted me to serve.
Amanda, I’m glad another woman has weighed in on this subject, and I agree that missions, evangelism, and discipleship (fulfilling the Great Commission) should be the focused purpose of our churches and Convention. I disagree with your assessment that this issue is one we should disregard. The debate comes because of a clash between what is practical and what is theoretical (as noted by McBeth in his 1979 book and quoted by White and Duesing), and this clash is not resolved easily. I have no proposed solutions save continuing to teach what the Bible has already made clear- God intends for the pastor/elders of the church to be men of good repute and of high moral character (1 Tim. 3).
*anti-spam word? longsuffering.. ironic? Maybe.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Sister Emily,
Thank you for revealing to us the heart of a follower and minister of Christ. Your wisdom is showing as you assess how the Holy Spirit will use you in the ministry of the word in the body.
That is the same attitude that Paul expresses to his dear friend in Rome and abroad…..
Romans 16:1-16 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; (2) that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. (3) Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, (4) who for my life risked their own necks, to whom not only do I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles; (5) also greet the church that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia. (6) Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. (7) Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (8) Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. (9) Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys my beloved. (10) Greet Apelles, the approved in Christ. Greet those who are of the household of Aristobulus. (11) Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of the household of Narcissus, who are in the Lord. (12) Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, workers in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who has worked hard in the Lord. (13) Greet Rufus, a choice man in the Lord, also his mother and mine. (14) Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brethren with them. (15) Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. (16) Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.”
We should all receive our brothers and sisters in Christ and be a “helper of many”.
Blessings,
Chris