New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Home arrow News arrow Southwestern Seminary adopts statement asserting male headship
 
Southwestern Seminary adopts statement asserting male headship Print E-mail
By Bob Allen   
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

FORT WORTH, Texas (ABP) -- Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has adopted a policy statement that declares men and women equal before God but created for specific roles of headship and submission in the church and home.

Seminary trustees voted Oct. 21 to add the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to the seminary’s policy manual under "Guiding Documents and Statements."

Seminary President Paige Patterson was among Christian leaders who drafted the Danvers Statement in 1987.
The statement, composed in 1987 in Danvers, Mass., by the then-new Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, responds to "widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity" and "increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism" in church and culture.

It affirms, among other things, that "Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood," that "distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order" and that "Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin."

"Complementarianism," a conservative theological view that men and women have different roles and responsibilities in marriage and religious leadership, has been gaining ground in the Southern Baptist Convention for 20 years.

Detractors say it is nothing more than Bible-sanctioned male chauvinism. But proponents say that choosing to live by what they interpret as God's design is in reality a form of women's liberation.

The opposing view, known as "egalitarianism," takes a view that values giftedness over gender distinctions. Egalitarians say men and women should share equal authority and responsibility in marriage and have equal leadership opportunities in the church.

The Southern Baptist Convention chose sides in the debate in 1998. That year, the group inserted a family article into its Baptist Faith and Message confessional statement that says the husband "has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family," while a wife "is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband."

Two years later the convention again amended the confession of faith to add, "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

Mimi Haddad of Christians for Biblical Authority says God's Spirit is not limited by gender distinctions.
Mimi Haddad, president of the Minneapolis-based Christians for Biblical Equality, said it is illogical to say on the one hand that men and women are equal but different in their access to authority.

"To claim that men and women have equal access to salvation and equal access to the spiritual gifts is to suggest that the Holy Spirit may provide individuals with gifts not according to human prejudice, but according to God's pleasure, as we clearly note throughout Scripture especially in the New Testament," she said.

Haddad, who has a Ph.D. in historical theology, said a good example of that principle is Lottie Moon, a famous Southern Baptist missionary to China in the 19th century whose unconventional ministry was so influential that an offering named in her honor is collected yearly in SBC churches to this day.

The Baptist Faith and Message remains Southwestern Seminary's only confessional document, meaning professors are required to teach within its confines. The additional statement, seminary President Paige Patterson said in a news release, will be used to establish "the general posture of the school" regarding gender roles.

Patterson, who had a hand in drafting the Danvers Statement, said it will serve as a guide in hiring and evaluation processes. In 2006 Patterson terminated Sheri Klouda, an Old Testament professor hired by his predecessor in 2002, saying he did not believe I Tim. 2:12-14 permitted a woman to teach the Bible to male students in a seminary classroom.

Klouda sued the seminary for gender discrimination in 2007, but a judge dismissed the case the following year. He said the dispute was over a religious matter protected by the First Amendment.

Klouda, now associate professor of Old Testament at Taylor University in Upland, Ind., said the Danvers Statement "makes a break with the realities of a fallen world" in its idealized view of family relationships.

Sheri Klouda now lives in Indiana and teaches at Taylor University.
She said the statement assumes that all Christian husbands exemplify superior biblical leadership in a marriage, which may be desirable but is not always the case. She said it also reinforces the notion that spousal abuse by husbands is in some way the fault of the wife -- and it fails to address a course of action for wives who must work outside the home to support their family for reasons of illness, disability or death of a husband.

"There are no allowances for the stuff of real life," Klouda said. "I have experienced several of these situations, and the church failed me consistently."

Also in 2007, Patterson announced the seminary would begin offering a new bachelor's degree with a concentration in homemaking. Parodied by one popular Baptist blogger as the "Mrs. Degree," Patterson said the program was a way of "moving against the tide in order to establish family and gender roles as described in God's Word for the home and the family."

In April Southwestern Seminary dedicated the Sarah Horner Homemaking House, an educational building equipped with a teaching kitchen, clothing and textiles lab, formal dining room and parlor in addition to library and classrooms. It is home to Southwestern students working toward a B.A. in humanities with a concentration in homemaking.

The concentration requires 22 hours of instruction in a wide range of homemaking skills like meal preparation and clothing construction out of a total 127 hours to earn a bachelor's degree.

Haddad said she doesn't know of another seminary or theological school that has adopted the Danvers Statement as institutional policy. But about 200 egalitarian organizations, churches or individuals have requested permission to use her organization's Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality in developing gender policies for work or worship.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has offices on the campus of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. The group's president, Randy Stinson, declined to comment for this story. 

-30-

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  is senior writer for Associated Baptist Press. 

 

 





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (24)Add Comment
response
written by Dr. J, October 28, 2009
I believe the Lord calls individuals to ministry regardless of gender. While I think SWBTS officials are incorrect in their interpretation of Scripture, I respect everyone's individual interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the reason I am respectful is that men suffer no harm because of this interpretation.
Men suffer?
written by mcskinny, October 28, 2009
DrJ,
Do you mean men as in the male gender will not suffer or men as in mankind will not suffer?
I too believe the interpretation is incorrect. I believe a small number of males will take this interpretation too far and at least some females will certainly suffer from these teachings. They have in the past and will in the future. Mankind will suffer because of this wrong interpretation of Holy Scripture in both context and application because some women God has, is and will call will be denied putting their talents and their call to full use.
Charlie Mac
...
written by nedward, October 29, 2009
Patterson should be selling used cars not President of an institution of 'higher learning'! He has his current position because he was the hatchet man for Paul Pressler and his current position is the political plum for his efforts! Duh!
...
written by kash, October 29, 2009
Its just a new spin on "separate but equal", and we (most of us) recognize there is no such thing.
...
written by Nabhi, October 29, 2009
Dr J -- The problem is when personal hermeneutics are over-ridden by one's Freudian "shortcomings".
response to Nabhi
written by Dr. J, October 29, 2009
Hi Nabhi:
I agree with you. However, I am convinced that each Christian is accountable to the Lord for their "walk and talk". I have no confidence in conventions or convention organization or convention spokespersons. So, I don't really care how Southwestern or any other convention related organization collectively interprets Scripture. It is their business. Personally, I want nothing to do with them (conventions etc) or to be identified with them. The only Christian organization I care to identify with is my local church. It is in the local church where ministry takes place (at least in my experience). One addendum to this is the work of missionaries. However, as tough as it is, I support local churches sending support to missionaries directly- not through some convention-run-ruled-fund.
...
written by KT2005, October 29, 2009
The problem is egalitarians lose the Bible quoting contest.

Ephesians 5:22

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord

Last time I checked the Lord has complete authority. Obviously a wife is to obey God rather than man, or a husband in this case. If a husband makes a request it is to be followed unless it is sin. How else can this passage be interpreted???

The argument that submission makes a woman less human also falls flat. Was Jesus less God as he submitted to his heavenly Father? No is the correct answer.

Feel free to disagree with the Bible, but anyone who can read understands what the passage above means.

Finally, to reject God's plan for the family is to embrace the world's. How has marriage been working since we abandoned the Bible's way?
Response to KT2005
written by Dr. J, October 29, 2009
You are welcome to your interpretation as am I.
Danvers statement makes the right distinctions. Equality of condition is a sham.
written by Xenophon, October 29, 2009
I completely agree with the position that Southwestern has taken on equality between the sexes. I would even apply their basic reasoning more widely.

God has created each individual in his image but with different abilities and interests as well as lifes' plana. For whatever reason, possibly due to the Fall of humanity, God has seen fit to order Creation as a hierarchy with some people holding more authority with accompanying responsibilities. There is no real alternative to hierarchy. Any two people who interact will find that one person has more power in the interaction than the other. If you have a pet(s), you can see that this truth also applies to animals and relationships between animals and people (a good question to ask yourself is who has more power in your household, you or your dog or cat?).

We can see this unsavory fact of life at a societal level in "Pareto's Iron Law," which brings out the truth that no matter the economic or political system, there is an unequal distribution of income and power regardless of governmental policies pursued in modern industrialized economies. A corollary of Pareto's Iron Law is the principle of "circulation of elites." This view holds that there will always be a governing elite in any social and political system. Group A's elites can be replaced by Group B's elites, but there is never any equality between or within groups vying for power. So, even the left has elites who appeal to poor people and middle and upper class people who identify with the poor but in the end rule over them as they extract money from other classes while the elites take the lion's share of money for themselves. Socialism is just as stratified a system as capitalism or any other system. It is just that different folks dominate in different regimes. J.J. Rousseau writing in *Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men* noticed that any civilization will necessarily bring with it inequality due to the increased division of labor and the greater opportunity for the more talented and motivated people to increase their wealth and influence. Of course, once in power, people will arrange the legal and social order to retain their power. If they do not, they are suicidal. We can see Rousseau's observation played out in contemporary trends to increasing income inequality in growing economies.

Returning to gender inequality in particular, removing barriers to women finding work outside the home and entering all sorts of previously male dominated fields, leads to more inequality, less harmony, and less personal satisfaction for all including women. Let's consider the first of these claims I have just made. As we have seen intelligent and highly educated women marry men of similar standing and both have entered careers, the combined income of such couples has drastically escalated the income gap between the rich and poor. Second, as women enter the workforce and gain additional sources of income, they are more likely to become critical and dissatisfied with their husbands as they consequently seek divorce and commit adultery. Even if things do not go to these extremes, which they frequently do, the more couples abandon traditional roles within marriage, the more negotiation must take place to establish who will do what and when. While minimal negotiation can be managed successfully, the more people must continually negotiate and alter their expectations, the more room there is for conflict and disappointment. This point plays into my third claim that the complementary approach to marriage has proven more successful in creating a happy home for both men and women, which is borne out by empirical research. University of Virginia sociologists Bradford Wilcox and Steven Nock have found that women are more happily married if the man makes at least 65% of the family income and they provide a supporting role for him. The key to this finding is two-fold. One part of this formula for success is that the woman feels that the husband is contributing to the security of the family by devoting himself to his work as the woman responds by doing her part to provide a supporting role to his lucrative work. The second part of the successful marriage is that men provide emotional support and comfort for their wives. Wilcox and Nock find that no matter the beliefs and temperament of the women, including feminists, women are happier with a complementary marriage than an egalitarian marriage. Other studies show that most abuse of women occur not in marriage but in live-in relationships.

http://www.virginia.edu/sociology/peopleofsociology/wilcoxpapers/Wilcox Nock marriage.pdf
...
written by ABP Reader, October 29, 2009
"If your right hand offends cut it off."

Southwestern Seminary
written by mitchc, October 30, 2009
One person cannot rule another without corruption seeping in. We are all given different gifts, but no gift is superior to another. God is love. I am fortunate to have grown up in a home where there was not woman's work or man's work. There was just work. It is the same in God's kingdom. We are all needed to light the way for others. This kind of attitude does only harm to the cause of Christ.
response to ABP Reader
written by Dr. J, October 30, 2009
You are certainly welcome to disagree. What is dishonest is attributing statements to anyone- in this case Rush- that were never spoken. Then comparing Rush to a person who we all watched make racist statements- no less from a pulpit- and also took the Lord's name in vain. So feel free to disagree with facts not lies.
innate sex differences
written by Xenophon, October 30, 2009
There are many scientific studies showing that there are innate sex differences that make men and women more inclined and more able at performing different tasks. Below is a link to a summary of one such study at Cambridge University that distinguishes between brains that are more oriented toward empathy and those that are more oriented toward systematic analysis. Women are more likely to have the former type of brain and men the latter. These differences show up in infants and toddlers indicating that they are innate. We can see that these capacities make people more suited for traditional sex roles. There are exceptions though.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/139916/the_essential_difference_the_male_and_female_brain/index.html
Go all the way
written by mcskinny, October 31, 2009
OK, if Southern Baptist Seminary is going to stand on selected verses such as Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 2 as doctrine, why not go all the way? Most, if not all husbands will have to purify their actions towards their submissive wife. You MUST treat her as you treat yourself. No leeway, dollar for dollar, joy for joy, shopping spree for shopping spree, for you two are one, inseparable.

While you are changing the way you love (treat) her, you must find some way to tell her she can no longer wear gold, pearls, or expensive dresses to church or have her hair done up in the latest style of the day. No, you may not make exceptions, it is after all in the same chapter, thus in the same context.

Jesus told the most learned theologians of his day that they were incorrect in interpreting the scriptures. Jesus might not be any more complementary today than He was over 2000 years ago.

Charlie Mac
...
written by KT2005, October 31, 2009
Charlie,

I respect your opinion, but listen to what conservatives say not what you think they say. Here is the passage you speak about.

1 Timothy 2

8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

If you look at the Greek the text says "braided hair AND (Kai) gold or pearls or costly clothing," There was a style at the time that braided hair with decorative gold. So if one wants to be legalistic about it, one could say a woman could braid her hair without gold or wear gold in her hair as long as she did not braid. No conservative would argue this way. The point is a woman shouldn't spend too much money on the way she looks. Value does not come from the outside but the inside. . . godliness. I think we would all agree this is a fine message for women who must live in our sex crazed culture. From this passage one can argue against pearls outright, but not gold. Paul is preaching against extravagance here. Don't moderates and conservatives agree on this? Who believes a woman should place her self esteem on her youthful good looks? After all, we all get old and ugly. . . its just a matter of time. . . assuming God allows us to live a long and blessed life. ;-)
You got the point.
written by mcskinny, October 31, 2009
KT, Good point.
The point is that some are making "doctrine" by literally interpreting a verse (12) while discerning the meaning relative to the culture of the time from another verse (8) of the same chapter.
Is that even logical? If one is literal shouldn't the other also be literal?
I can not read Greek but I can use a reference concordance in study. My study as a layman has led me to believe that we should attempt to understand scripture in light of the application to the day it was written, the application for today, and the application for the future.
The role of women in the culture of Paul's day was vastly different to the role of women in the culture of today. Certainly the role of women will be vastly different in cultures of the future. Should Southern Baptist dictate to God how He can use women as culture changes?
Charlie Mac
...
written by KT2005, October 31, 2009
Charlie,

You make a good point, but this is what conservatives would say. Paul does not root his argument about women not teaching men in culture, but creation (vs.13). Before sin ever entered the world Paul says man being made first gives him authority over his wife Eve. Some argue that Adam showed his authority over the animals by naming them, and thus also shows authority over Eve by naming her. Now why being made first grants this authority is besides the point. Conservatives argue that Paul is inspired by God, and therefore his reasoning is both solid and of God. These are tough issues not doubt!

1 Timothy 2

12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
culture does not change human nature
written by Xenophon, October 31, 2009
There is no reason to believe that surface cultural changes fundamentally alter basic human institutions. There may be a change of emphasis or degree, but since these universal and basic human institutions such as marriage remain the same and human nature and physiology remain the same, there is no reason to think that the underlying basis for human behavior and attitudes will radically change.

There are no cultures, nations, or any human arrangement in history that has achieved equality of result between the sexes or in other respects. On the issue of gender equality, consider the extensive study made by sociologist Steven Goldberg of tribes and civilizations throughout history as he investigated sexual equality in his book *Why Men Rule.* While he found that women are better treated and have more indirect influence in some cultures than others, he found no tribe or society that achieved sexual equality of status and condition.

No where in the Bible does it suggest that people or any other creatures are equal in condition or status nor does it put forward a normative standard of equality of result. I challenge anyone reading this to cite a passage that demands that we arrange human institutions to achieve equality of result. I do not think that you can find such a passage in the Bible.

As I have suggested above citing evidence from contemporary culture, there are innate biological differences between men and women. These differences lead people to being more able and interested in different roles in life. As studies in the present culture show, women are typically more likely to be happily married if they assume more supportive roles for their husbands as long as the man can adequately provide for the family and he is kind and loving in his relationship to her. This recent study from the University of Virginia that I cited above seems to provide supporting evidence for Paul's admonition in Ephesians 5 for wives to respect their husbands and for husbands to love their wives. The truths in the Bible do not substantively change over time or in different cultures. If one believes otherwise, I would only ask for evidence other than personal impressions.
No changes?
written by mcskinny, October 31, 2009
I thought that I remembered that even Peter found that some long held truths of the Bible changed? Just shows how unlearned I am.Paul was writing to a younger minister about how to handle what was happening in his area. If we should take Paul's words to Timothy and apply them literally to today, women wearing gold, pearls, expensive dresses (who sets the price?) and hair braids are out.
I am sorry, but this is one lay Southern Baptist who thinks Paige is incorrect in both his interpretation and application. Priesthood of the Believer is still a Southern Baptist belief, isn't it? There are many more who believe as I do, but are tired of arguing and fighting.
Charlie Mac
Charlie Mac
reply to Mac
written by Xenophon, October 31, 2009
Charlie Mac, I take it that this statement you made above is a reply to my challenge to show that the Bible does not expect or demand equality of result in human affairs, and in this present context, marriage: "I thought that I remembered that even Peter found that some long held truths of the Bible changed?"

In reply, I assume you are referring to the changes made in the New Testament to the demands of observing the dietary code and other similar requirements specifically directed to ancient Israel. These commands by God were made for practical reasons as well as to make Israel a distinctive nation set apart from the pagan nations. Since Pentacost, the Gospel has expanded God's outreach to all people making these distinctives less necessary. Some of these practices are still good rules of thumb to live by, and they can be used by the Jewish community to retain their distinctiveness even today (I would hope as they accepted Jesus as Messiah, they would use their traditions to highlight the continuity between Judaism and Christianity). The religious rites of animal sacrifice also became obsolete after the sacrificial death of Jesus on the Cross. At the time they were instituted, animal sacrifice symbolized the coming of the One who would make the truly efficacious sacrifice for the sins of the world. Jesus as the incarnation of God would become that scapegoat, as I am sure that you know. The truth that all of these requirements in the Old Testament pointed to are still in effect today--viz., people need an atoning sacrifice for their sins and God has chosen people to identify themselves as his people. The moral truths presented to us by God in the Old Testament were and are universally applicable and relevant at all times to all humans. Even people who have not read the Bible have these basic moral imperatives implanted in their hearts and minds.

What we are discussing here though is the fundamental structure of marriage and the family. Even if you could argue successfully that God revealed new truths in the New Testament that did more than complete the progression of God's plan that he laid out through the writers of the Old Testament (which I doubt that one could argue and do justice to the text), such a case would not affect the validity of basic moral truths and social institutions. I do agree that there can be some accommodation made for natural and social contingency as the person on the scene applies the universal precepts, but allowing some reasonable flexibility does not lead to wholesale substantive alteration of the principle or institution.

Given the evidence that we have on hand, there does not seem to be a good reason to alter the fundamental structure of marriage in contemporary society in any case. I also do not see any biblical reference or any evidential case apart from the Bible to be made in favor of egalitarian marriage in contemporary culture.

Finally, I think discussing our views and frankly challenging what others argue for is the bedrock principle of a free society with free speech. This jostling process is how the truth gets sifted from error. These discussions in no way limit the judgement of each individual who must weigh the evidence and logic of each perspective on these issues.
Correction--Charlie Mac
written by Xenophon, October 31, 2009
I meant to say, in the title to my last post, "reply to Charlie Mac." I misread your name on the post when I first wrote my reply and corrected it in the body of the post. I apologize for the error.
No Apology Needed
written by mcskinny, November 01, 2009
Xenophon, I actually most peple I know call me Mac or Mr Mac. Charlie Mac is as psuedo as I assume your use of Xenophon is, although we hear some really strange names here in the deep south.
Your thoughts on exactly how the scriptures play out and apply to today are truthful as well as interesting. Not a word about how if literaly the scriptures forbid women to teach men they also forbid wearing specific items in church.
Charlie Mac
questions for Charlie
written by Xenophon, November 01, 2009
Thanks for your reply, Charlie Mac. I have a tendency to accidentally goof up people's screen names in replies, but I thought that 'Charlie Mac' was part of your real name, so I felt it necessary to apologize especially since we were disagreeing. I like to disagree with people without being disagreeable. And yes, Xenophon is not my real name.

Before I answer your questions concerning the passages you refer to concerning women's dress and hair styles, would you please explain how you would make sense of I Peter 3:3-4 and a similar passage written by Paul in I Timothy 2:9-10 as well as the passage in Ephesians 5 relating to the marital relationship?
response to Kash
written by Dr. J, November 01, 2009
Hi Kash:
You may be hard-pressed to find healthcare as a basic right. Virtually every American can get healthcare now. However, it is not a right. If an American needs healthcare and cannot get it, it is Christian ministry that is called upon to make up gulf- not government imposed redistribution of wealth.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.