Associated Baptist Press - Opinion: Does the SBC respect local-church autonomy or not?

Opinion: Does the SBC respect local-church autonomy or not?

By Wade Burleson

Friday, November 20, 2009

(ABP) -- During the November 11, 2009, business session of the Georgia Baptist Convention, messengers to the Southern Baptist-affiliated state body dismissed the First Baptist Church of Decatur, Ga., from fellowship for the church's calling of Julie Pennington-Russell as senior pastor in 2007. The SBC will not establish a database to track ministerial child abusers out of fear of "violating local church autonomy," but when it comes to a church calling a woman to preach the gospel, church autonomy is slain at the feet of conventional conformity.

The notion that a woman cannot preach the gospel, or teach a man, or perform "pastoral" duties, is not biblical -- not even close. As time passes, more and more Bible-believing, conservative, Christ-honoring evangelicals are beginning to see that any prohibition against a woman ministering in the same manner as a man is a man-made restriction. God, in the New Covenant, signed and sealed by his Son's blood, has set his women free to function in the Kingdom in the same manner he has his men.

As far back as the 1980s, conservative, Bible-believing men and women began voicing their beliefs that the inerrant, inspired Word of God declared full equality of men and women in creation and redemption. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, filled with Southern Baptist leadership , was formed to combat what they called "evangelical feminism." As I pointed out last week, Southern Baptists who wish to suppress women will even alter the sacred text to accomplish this goal. SBC seminary professor David Jones' article, posted by CBMW, alleges "scribal error" when Paul made reference to a female apostle in Romans 16:7. I wrote that it is sad when inerrantists resort to pointing out error in the text to sustain a theological position.

The issue of women in ministry should NOT divide conservative evangelicals from cooperating in world-wide mission efforts, particularly when one side of the debate is having to alter the sacred text in order to sustain its position. When messengers from the Georgia Baptist Convention "disfellowship" and "sever relationship" with autonomous local churches who are following what they believe the Bible to teach, then they have placed others of us who wish to identify with the Southern Baptist Convention in a very, very precarious position.

As I wrote two years ago:

If a Southern Baptist cannot point out where he/she believes the BFM [Baptist Faith & Message] 2000 is in contradiction with Scripture we are in trouble. In fact, if a Southern Baptist voices a disagreement with some of the interpretations of tertiary doctrines found within the BFM 2000, and we then begin to ‘question’ that Southern Baptist’s conservative credentials, we have prostituted our heritage as Baptists. Why? We will have placed ourselves in the very bizarre place of having people in the SBC being called ‘liberal’ when they champion their belief of the authority of the Bible over a man-made confession. Think about it -- in 2007 it is possible for Southern Baptists to call ‘a liberal’ someone within the convention whose conscience is bound to the Word of God, and not the BFM 2000!

The Georgia Baptist Convention last week sent money back to First Baptist Church, Decatur -- money that the congregation had given them through Cooperative Program mission efforts the preceding year. The GBC said to FBC, Decatur, "Keep your money. We don't want it, nor do we wish you to be identified with us."

Well, I've got news for the SBC. If we have come to the time when a conservative, Bible-believing Southern Baptist church cannot follow what she believes the Bible teaches, and is forced to either conform to convention mandates or else be removed from fellowship, then the SBC has stopped being a legitimate, historical Baptist convention of cooperating believers and churches and has become a cult.

I, and the church to which I belong, want no part of a cult. A hundred years from now -- if the Lord tarries, and another generation of Southern Baptists are allowed to arise -- it is my prayer that they will see there were some Southern Baptists in 2009 who refused to stick their head in the sand when the Bible stopped being the standard of faith for Southern Baptists.

-30-

Wade Burleson is senior pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla., and a prominent blogger and reform advocate in Southern Baptist life. This column is adapted from a post that appeared Nov. 18 on his blog, Grace and Truth to You.

EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP's staff, board of directors or supporters.

What's this?

Comments (36) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by KT2005, November 20, 2009

What happened to Wade? I started out respecting the man years ago, but now he has drake the liberal cool-aid. I just do not understand how anyone can think upholding the traditional view of gender roles is somehow anti-Bible. Timothy 2 is very clear. Not much to argue about in my mind.

...
written by KT2005, November 20, 2009

Also, how did he sign the BFM 2000 while a trustee?

Timothy 2 very clear?
written by mcskinny, November 20, 2009

KT2005, are you really sure Paul's letter to Timothy is clear as it applied to women then and applies to women now?

If Timothy 2 forbids women to keep silent and not teach or have authority over men, I 'm going to assume you have a wife and that you forbid her to wear gold, pearls, and wear the best dress you can afford, or have her hair done by a hair stylist in the latest style.
Am I correct?

...
written by mcskinny, November 20, 2009

"Forbids" was left after a rewrite. Should be "commands"

...
written by KT2005, November 20, 2009

Well if we are going to throw out all commands to women why not do the same with homosexuality? Anyone else have anything they want to ignore?

The Greek is Gold and hair, meaning putting gold in ones hair. Ones best is not necessarily extravagant. . . I think we have talked about this before.

I personally never let my wife leave the house, and rarely let her leave the kitchen. She raises our 12 children in Arkansas and wears one of three potato sacks each day. She wears the nice sack on the Sabbath. ;-)

Yep
written by mcskinny, November 21, 2009

Yep, we wrote about this before. You pick which words are commands and thus relevant to today and which aren't from Paul's same line of reasoning and thought. You even brought up homosexuality before as if it has anything to do with the topic of women's roles in churches today. Homosexuality often comes up when a fundie has no answer to a logical question.
None of the 6 or 8 translations I have read reads your way regarding gold and hair. In my English translations all basically say Paul said that women are not to wear gold, pearls, expensive dresses, styled hair, or teach men.
Please leave homosexuality out of your answer, as that is a completely different discussion.

...
written by KT2005, November 21, 2009

No answer? lol Come on now, you have a better memory than that. Fundie? No, not at all. I want homosexual equality, and you want to use scripture based upon a culture 2000 years ago to oppress gay people. You have a double standard. Why do you seek to liberate women and chain homosexuals? lol

Let us look at Timothy again, lest you think conservatives have no answer.

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. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 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. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

The section that concerns you most is "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.

The Greek says not with braided hair AND gold or pearls or costly clothing. If you do not believe me ask your pastor. There was a hair style that people wore back then that braided hair with gold leaflets in between braids. If you want to get legalistic about it one could wear gold without braided hair or braided hair without gold. Yet NO CONSERVATIVE would argue this way. I love the way liberals think they understand conservatives better than conservatives. The point is do not dress extravagantly. One could argue against pearls outright, but not gold. The children of Israel offered gold ear rings to God in the OT. Anyhow, we both agree that women should find self worth in who they are not what they wear. This is Paul's message, one that we both agree on. How much does a dress have to cost before it becomes costly: I believe a woman's conscience decides the price. The Holy Spirit does lead us after all. That said, a $1,000 Palin dress would certainly be costly. lol

So, as you can see, I apply all of 1 Timothy 2 and am therefore logically consistent. Also note that Paul backs his commands by saying "13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve." Thus he roots his "logical" argument in creation not culture 2000 years ago. Does this not make your position illogical since you say women are now able to teach men because Paul's prohibition was rooted in culture? A "logical" man clearly sees the answer.

Your twisted logic is also used by the homosexual movement to approve of their sin. They say exactly what you say but apply the argument to themselves rather than women. You being a smart man understand what I am saying.

I hope I have at least established that Bible believers have answers. You may not like our answers, but they are logically consistent.

My wife thanks you. Due to our conversation, I now allow her out of the Kitchen an extra hour each day. ;-)

Logic?
written by mcskinny, November 21, 2009

See, you just had to bring an outside argument (the sin of homosexuality) into what should be a straight forward answer.
Paul himself wrote, "I personally do not allow ..." (In Greek of course, not English) "Because I believe...."
Actually I have on occassion had to opportunity to discuss this subject with my pastors (plural, well trained in Greek at two different SB seminaries) of the last 30 years and have found agreement with my lay study/reading/understanding of this passage.
My concern is not with the adornment of women as you state, but with the inclusion in the SBC BFM of an incorrect interpretation/extension of what Paul wrote. It takes a lot of nerve for human beings to place a limit on who God or even an autonomous Baptist church can call as pastor! I try to point out that if part of Paul's advice to pastor Timothy is law worthy of inclusion in the BFM then the rest of his advice is also.
I questioned and still question how one of the above is law and the other not. I do understand how Paul would say I personally do not allow in light of the role of women in society, even in Jewish society, in his time.
Try really really hard not to extrapolate homosexual's interpretation of scripture pertaining to their sin into this discussion of women as pastors. The same point you try to make with their example applies to your reasoning away Paul's words concerning women's adornments.

The Commandment of Jesus Christ
written by Mark Osgatharp, November 21, 2009

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

Why should women be silent in the church, according to Paul:

1. It is not permitted for them to speak.

2. They are commanded to be obedient.

3. The law says the same thing.

4. If they want to ask questions they should ask their husbands at home.

5. It is shameful for them to speak in the church.

6. Silence for women in the church was God's truth for all to whom His word came.

7. Jesus Christ commanded it.

8. Spiritual people acknowledge it.

9. Ignorant people deny it.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

...
written by KT2005, November 21, 2009

Paul speaks as an apostle, and apostles have authority. So if he says "I say" he speaks with apostolic authority. Which is why his letter are in the Bible.

Full biblical context, anyone?
written by kash, November 21, 2009

Seriously, Osgatharp. Why not keep the men and women in separate parts of the church, too, like the orthodox Jews and the Muslims do? Besides, Paul doesn't even live up to Osgatharp's proscriptions. He refers to a woman as a deaconess (Phoebe, in Romans 16:1), not to mention his praise of Priscilla, who is obviously VERY active in the church in Rome from the beginning (see Acts 18:18-28, and Romans 16:3). Lydia seems to have been very important in the establishment of the church at Philippi. And the passage Osgatharp quoted, from 1 Cor 14, comes after a lengthy diatribe against speaking in tongues. Taken in context, it is quite clear to see that this is in reference to the sort of spritual prophesying/speaking in tongues stuff that disrupts a service and causes disorder. And we're obviously talking about a different sort of worship than our modern church experience, because of the description of asking questions. I mean, do men ask questions of the pastor in the middle of a sermon nowadays? Paul is giving specific advice to a specific group in Corinth whose meetings were being disrupted by people speaking in tongues and a lot of arguing over doctrine (consistent with the situation as described in Acts, by the way). Read verses 29 through 33, which immediately preceded the ones about women. This is not a description of how we do "church". It is more like the way Jewish men in the temple would get together and argue about scripture, from which women were banned. It was never intended to be a general ban on women teaching or preaching in any context. Paul worked with many female teachers and preachers, even though he had all of the same cultural biases against women that the Jews did. He overcame them because of his belief that there was nor "male of female" in Christ Jesus. Too bad the SBC can't do the same.

Women in the Ministry
written by mightyfowl, November 21, 2009

I've wondered where, for years, Paul told Timothy that HE, Timothy, should not let women teach, etc. Or, for that matter, told anybody. And if you read 1 Corinthians 5, you'll note Paul is pretty good at giving instructions. When he wants to give instructions, that is.

I think it significant that nobody's ever shown me where he did, as respects this.

My personal feelings on the issue aside, I believe the local church should have that autonomy. The Baptist Faith and Message already says they have, as a group of Baptists, the right to issue their own statement of beliefs. Apparently someone interprets that to mean "unless you want to stay in the SBC."

Maybe he didn't want to, writing to Timothy.

Names and Canon
written by mcskinny, November 22, 2009

Mr Mark,
My uneducated opinion is that your #9 where you label anyone who disagrees with you on this subject as being ignorant, completely erases any gains you may have made from your other, already questionable in context, points.
KT,
"Which is why his letters are in the Bible."
Are you claiming to know why God led the Council of Carthage to include Paul's letters when they confirmed and closed the Canon of the New Testament in 397 A.D.? Wow! I wonder what was in the other letter to the Corinthians that caused God to exclude it? Paul was an apostle when he wrote it too. You do know that there probably was three letters to the church at Corinth?
Charlie Mac
Semmes, AL

Closed canon?
written by kash, November 22, 2009

You know, the books included in "The Bible" were still in dispute for years after 397 AD. Catholics still accept the Apocrypha, and even Protestant Bibles usually had them in them until the mid 1800s. The eastern churches still accept 3 Maccabees, a different version of Ezra, an additional Psalm, prayer of Manassah, in addition to the apocrypha and various other books depending on the sect. Martin Luther didn't like many of the books in the Bible and felt quite free to edit verses to his liking.

Yes, that is true.
written by mcskinny, November 22, 2009

Kash, There are some who to this day want to add other ancient writings, but most Protestants, Southern Baptists included, agree that the canon was closed in 397 after the Council of Carthage. This was confirmed again at Carthage in 419. I was responding to a statement that what Paul wrote was authoritative because he was an apostle. It is very possible that not all of Paul the Apostle's writing have been preserved and included in the canon.
I continue to wait for an explanation of why a portion of Paul's instruction to Timothy is promoted to prominence to be included in the BFM while most of the same instruction is ignored in practice. Why withdraw fellowship from a cooperating church because of the gender of their pastor and not from churches who allow members of that same gender to flaunt Paul's admonition to not wear certain items? Those who are so certain that God would not, and churches should not, call a woman to pastor a church claim they do not pick and choose which scripture to follow, actually pick and choose from the same chapter.

response to McSkinny
written by kash, November 22, 2009

Yes, I generally find that those who claim to take the Bible "literally" really mean that they take literally the verses that fit their preconceived worldview and have lots of excuses...er...reasons why not to take other verses literally.

Burleson is right
written by Slick, November 23, 2009

Fundamentalists never think for themselves. They just parrot everything that people like Patterson and Mohler say. That's very much like the RC practice of ignore the Bible and just do what the priest says. There are too many outspoken so-called leaders of the SBC who do nothing but embarrass the convention with their sanctimonious platitudes. Fine for Paul to say he didn’t permit women to do certain things. I don’t see that he said God gave him that or that everyone else was to conform to his practice.

Women of Paul’s day were uneducated and considered lower class citizens—a cultural matter and not necessarily one of God’s direction. To deny women the freedom to respond to God’s call and direction is to deny Almighty God and place one’s self above God. Of course Patterson and Mohler both seem to think they’re several notches above God already.

Thank God for Christians like Wade Burleson who speak the truth.

Question
written by AKScott, November 23, 2009

What about the autonomy of the Georgia Baptist State Convention? Do they not have the right to choose what churches they will and will not associate with? Should they be forced to partner with a church that they believe are violating Biblical principles?

As an autonomous church, FBC Decatur called a female pastor. No denominational structure prevented them from doing so. They are autonomous, they can do whatever they please. The GBSC, as an autonomous convention, chose to disassociate themselves from FBC Decatur. We may disagree about the reasons for this decision, but as an autonomous organization, they had the right to do so.

Looking at the comments posted, there is very little constructive discussion about the matter, and a lot of SBC bashing. It is sad that there is so much anger against the SBC. I do not understand why people can't get over their anger.

...
written by kash, November 23, 2009

"I do not understand why people can't get over their anger." Umm, maybe because the SBC keeps doing and saying things that makes people angry. Or, in my case, frustrated and sad.

Kash
written by AKScott, November 24, 2009

If the SBC continues to do things that make you frustrated and sad, then why do you allow them to influence you? Why do you care about the things that the SBC does?

AKScott
written by brotherroy, November 24, 2009

I cannot and would not presume to speak for Kash regarding why the actions of the SBC would make someone frustrated and sad. From my personal persective, as someone who grew up in a Southern Baptist church, attended both a Southern Baptist college and seminary, and intended to serve on the mission field as a Southern Baptist until told I was not welcome, I have moved on. I am no longer Southern Baptist, and at a personal level hold no animosity towards those who moved the SBC in a more conservative direction. But your question as to why someone would "care about the things the SBC does" is a valid question. One reason why any Christian would care is the reality that the SBC is large and their behaviors mold perceptions of both Christians and non-Christians in the United States. And the actions and statements made by those affiliated with the SBC impact the greater cause of Christ. So, on one level, we could say the actions of the SBC are their actions and theirs alone, and of course they are entitled to do whatever Southern Baptist authorize them to do. On another level, their narrow theology and alignment with the political right in this country gives many the impression that their Christianity is the only Christianity out there. This does harm the cause of Christ.

...
written by DanGreen, November 24, 2009

Discrimination is wrong, period. You can push, pull and stretch the Bible all you want, and you can never justify it. Anyone of any gender can proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?

...
written by Lynn Clayton, November 24, 2009

Wade, save you ink and words. Remember, it the fundamentalist agenda, first and foremost. The2000 Baptist Faith and Message is a politcal statement wrapped in theological terms. Scripture are only important as proof texts taken out of context.

response to AKScott
written by kash, November 24, 2009

There are many reasons to care what the SBC does, including that is the largest and most vocal of the Baptist groups in the US, and therefore people tend to equate the views of the SBC with the views of all Baptists. Baptists have a proud heritage of standing up for religious freedom in this country, and autonomy of local churches and even individual consciences. The SBC in the 20th century moved away from that heritage, first in the civil rights era and then in the rise of the religious right. I think that is sad. But mostly I am frustrated and sad because my local churh is a southern Baptist affiliated church, and I continue to go there because I live in a rural area, beleive it is important to go to church in my community, and because I love the people who go to that church. However, I have a 3 year old son and an 18 month old daughter. If one of my children is called to the ministry, he will be encouraged and supported, but if the other child is called to the ministry, she will be discouraged and ostracized if she follows that calling. I will probably eventually have to go to another denomination (there is a Methodist chruch about 25 minutes away) or a more moderate Baptist church (there is a CBF church in the nearest city which is an hour away) in order for my daughter to be able to experience the full free expression of her faith. That is sad.

More of the usual demagoguery.
written by Ken, November 24, 2009

How does it interfere with a church's autonomy if a denomination chooses to exclude them from membership? The SBC and state conventions have every right in the world to decide who they will and will not allow as members. It's as simple as that.

This article is just more of Wade Burleson's demagoguery.

your interpretation
written by Dr. J, November 24, 2009

Believe what you feel led by the Holy Spirit to believe. After many years of discussion, I've decided to not try to move anyone to my views. I'm just going to try to listen to the Lord. For the last 30 years He has been leading me to believe (through Scripture, prayer, and discussion) ministry is independent of gender. He calls to ministry all Christians and gifts as He chooses.

Dr. J
written by Mark Osgatharp, November 24, 2009

Dr. J,

You said,

"For the last 30 years He has been leading me to believe (through Scripture, prayer, and discussion) ministry is independent of gender. He calls to ministry all Christians and gifts as He chooses."

Isn't that odd, because for about the same amount of time the Lord has been leading me to see, through the Scriptures, prayer and observation of reality, that a huge part of the problems we face as a society and as Baptist churches are the direct fruit of our embrace of feminism, whether in philosophy or in practice.

I've been a pastor for about 26 years and I can trace almost every major church problem I have faced to women. Which is the same as to say, if the women had kept silent in the church like the Lord commanded, I would have had very few church problems. Not only so, but the ones I have experienced would have been far less acrimonious if they had been ironed out by the men without the women cackling in the background.

No, Baptists don't need to broaden our acceptance of the feminist agenda. We need to go back about 200 years and start afresh with men at the helm of church and family.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

...
written by cdlumpkin, November 24, 2009

From our beginning as a Christian movement, Baptists have had female preachers and ministers. The Baptist movement that most of our churches descend from, The Separate Baptists, had a dynamic she-preacher in the person of Martha Stearns Marshall, who was the wife of Daniel Marshall and sister of Shubal Stearns. Martha Steans Marshall is credited with convicting several crowds in North Carolina and Virginia to follow Christ. Spinning, fuming, denying, redacting, and ignoring is not going to change history.

As for Greek translations concerning 1 Timothy 2, it is disputed what Paul meant, but Paul's actions speak volumes to his beliefs and practice of Christianity. He preached along side Priscilla and Aquila (who were wife and husband). In Romans 16:3 they are both commended for their work along side Paul. Again spinning, fuming, denying, redacting, and ignoring is not going to change biblical history.

Read all of Romans 16 and you will find several other women that lead churches. Phillip's daughters were preachers. (Acts 21:9) The word "prophesied" means preach/proclamation/holy utterings. While contemplating a call for women preaching consider Acts 2:17-21 quoting the Prophet Joel (Joel 2:28-32). Again spinning, fuming, denying, redacting, and ignoring is not going to change scripture.

But perhaps the greatest testament to our Lord's acceptance of women as proclaimers/preachers of the Good News is who the first proclaimers were of the resurrection. Not male disciples who walked with Jesus, but women disciples that walked with Jesus. Scripture records Christ's own words (the red letters in some bibles) to the women to proclaim the Good News.

In the end, the simple truth is that those God has ordained (set aside for ministry) do not need others approval to preach, teach, minister or deacon. They have God's permission and blessing to do as God directs. Each church has the absolute calling to follow any whom God has sent, and no other church or denomination has the authority to reject God's choices for another. It is my witness that churches lead by women have lead men and women to Christ and ministered in Christ name as flawlessly as churches lead lead by men. Spinning, fuming, denying, redacting, and ignoring is not going to change the truth.

cdlumpkin
written by Mark Osgatharp, November 25, 2009

Mr. (Ms?) Lumpkin,

All your "Spinning, fuming, denying, redacting, and ignoring" does not change the fact that Paul, as the spokesman for Jesus Christ, commanded the women to be silent in the church - the assembly. He didn't say that women couldn't be a testimony for Christ. He didn't say that women couldn't serve the church. He didn't say that women couldn't provide any spiritual service. He didn't demean women in any way.

Nor is there any question about what Paul said.

By the way, when you were pointing up the women preachers in Baptist history, you forgot to point out the one mentioned in the Bible - Jezebel of Thyatira. She is the one who promoted idolatry and whoredom among His servants and Jesus told her that He would cast her into a bed of affliction if she didn't repent.

This woman bears an amazing parallel to the feminized preachers (both male and female) of our day who have been some of the chief promoters of the acceptance of sexual perversion, indiscriminate divorce and remarriage contrary to the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ.

May God have mercy on this feminized generation of Baptists!

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

...
written by cfsmith, November 25, 2009

The article is about women pastors, but the issue raised here initially is about whether the SBC respects local church autonomy. Unequivocally, the SBC absolutely does.

However, another historic Baptist principle states that Baptists are free to form associations around "like faith and order." This simply means that Baptist can form associations around a common set of beliefs and practices. If a church has a different belief or practice then they should join a different association. Baptists have been practicing this since the early 1600s.

No one has interferred with FBC Decatur's local church autonomy! They still have their beliefs and their practices and no one has taken that away from them. Since they are not in harmony with the beliefs and practices of the GA Baptist Convention and with the SBC, they have been rightly separated from them. This BTW is a separate issue from the one of who is right about women in ministry. Each Baptist body has the right to set its own rules, parameters, and beliefs and churches that agree can join and churches that disagree should NOT join.

The only real issue here involves the giving back of the money. It could be argued that the funds were given while the church was a member of the Convention, and therefore should not be returned--however, many who are "fussing" that FBC was removed would also "fuss" about GA Baptists keeping the money. So, returning the money was good PR, but also was, at best an honorable thing to do. It is better to live with honor than to hold on to a little money, even if you have a technical right to do so.

Whatever our personal beliefs, we should respect the right of FBC Decatur to make its own decisions. Equally we should respect the right of the state and national conventions to make theirs. As to the issue itself, we should certainly go to the Bible and let it--not our own inclinations, or our cultural background--determine what we believe. We should advocate our positions, respecting the right of others to do the same, even if they are on the wrong side of this question.

As to the issue itself, of women in ministry, it should not be decided in terms of tradition--but also it should not be decided in terms of "the spirit of the age" or of anyone's "rights" or even abilities. What God has said, should be the final authority, not what any of us feel, or what we wish were the case. Nor should this be decided on the basis of what we think will win us favor with most folks. What God has said--in the Bible--is the ONLY authority on this, as on all matters of faith and practice.

pastor
written by Bobby McCord, November 25, 2009

The issue is not an issue of local church autonomy. It is an issue of the authority of scripture. If a church chooses not to honor the authority of scripture when they choose leadership for their church, they no longer are a Bible believing church and no longer should enjoy the fellowship of an association or convention of bible believing churches.

...
written by DonJ, November 30, 2009

It is an interpretive decision to claim that the Bible forbids women pastors and others can make other interpretive decisions while still accepting the authority of Scripture. However, we see the attempt by some to create a Magisterium among Baptists, something the original Baptists opposed.

DonJ
written by Ken, November 30, 2009

"However, we see the attempt by some to create a Magisterium among Baptists, something the original Baptists opposed."

Modern Baptists oppose it, too. Your argument is nothing but a straw man. Baptists have always reserved the right to distance themselves from churches that adopt doctrines or practices that they regard as unscriptural.

The Georgia Baptist Convention was perfectly within its rights to withdraw fellowship from FBC, Decatur. Agree or disagree with the decision as you choose, but they did nothing "un-Baptist." This is just more of the melodrama that is Wade Burleson.

pastor
written by Bobby McCord, November 30, 2009

There have always benn and always will be As Jude said, "Certian men who have crept in" Don't you think that the hundreds of messengers from the hundreds of churches in Georgia have the right and the responsibity to earnestly contend for the faith when a few would choose to go against standards CLEARLY set forth in God's Word. How can you interpret "the husbund of one wife" as anything other than a Man? The apostles told the church in Jerusalem to call out seven MEN of good report filled with the Holy Ghost. How can you interpret the word MEN to mean women. Stop making excuses and stand on the authority of God's Word whether she like it or not.

...
written by wwburleson, December 02, 2009

Bobby McCord,

You write: "Stop making excuses and stand on the authority of God's Word."

That is precisely what is happening when conservative, evangelical inerrantists base their beliefs on the full equality of men and women in creation and redemption. They are standing on what the inerrant, inspired Word of God declares.

One of these days you will see that. You may not agree, but you will see it and you will stop framing the debate as if it is an issue of whether or not people "believe the Bible."

Blessings,

Wade

Wade
written by Ken, December 02, 2009

So what do you do with all the Scriptures which say the husband is the head of the family? Those are in the New Testament, not the Old.

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

< Prev		Next >

Baptists

Nation

World

Opinion