David Rogers Prays with Women Pastors

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Jim where do I "seem to" have said or suggested "that that just being a woman is all that's needed to make things right." I have stated many time that a woman should not be rejected for consideration for any ministerial position just because of her gender but I have never said they should be given preference due to their gender when it come to a pastoral call. The closest I have come is to say that I know some women who are more qualified than some men that are holding pastorates, and no, on that I will not name names. I have said nothing about removing those men and replacing them with women. That is not my place. Those churches made the call and it is theirs to deal with.

And Aaron thank you for your comments about the church where Trudy is pastor. They had already had at least two female pastors prior to this and they had at least three male interim pastors since their last "Settled" male pastor.

[Sandy]

[Jim]

[Blake]

I do think the SBC has an unhealthy low view of women. I am a complementarian but the SBC does not practice complementarianism so much as chauvinism and sexism. The places that women do occupy in the local church are only ever places that affirm chauvinist stereotypes of what women are capable of doing and should do (children's ministry, worship, women's ministry...). They fill roles of caretakers and counselors and teachers of age groups where complicated theological questions are okay to address with anything other than the honest and often difficult truth that is tasked to adult teachers and pastors (on the rare occasion they feel like being honest and rigorous).

As a complementarian I am not bothered by the fact that they fill those roles. Many women do seem more naturally gifted to those areas than men which is fine. My problem is that they do seem regularly barred from the more intellectual teaching ministries. I've not ever seen an SBC church recognize a woman's gift in her ability to teach scripture, theology, apologetics or history like they have men. I simply can not believe that no women are capable of doing these things as well if not better than men. Yet this is precisely what our seminaries confess with their actions.

We have six of the largest and best funded seminaries in the country and not a single one of them has a woman teaching bible, biblical languages, theology, apologetics, philosophy, or church history. Our seminaries affirm with their actions if nothing else that women's place is to be caring and leave the thinking up to the men. That is not complementarian. It is sexist. There are conservative evangelical women who are very capable and brilliant scholars and our resistance to hiring them is no oversight. Every man on our faculty is not a better scholar than women we could have hired if we had been intentional about finding those most merited to get the job. I am familiar enough with our professors' scholarship to realize we've gone for "yes men" over quality and rigor. It is discrimination and affirmation of patriarchy.

Yes, the SBC has major problems of inequality when it comes to women. Our complementarianism, as it is largely practiced, only affirms stereotypes and roles of genders we want to believe are true instead of what the Bible and church history has allowed to women. I affirm male servant leadership in the roles of church elders and bishops as I believe the Bible teaches, but those positions have more to do with managing the vision, mission and discipline of the congregation. Teachers, deacons, prophets, evangelists and missionaries should be open to those qualified among both genders. The SBC has restricted gender roles beyond what is allowed by scripture which makes us disobedient to it.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

I can only speak here anecdotally. I know four women who are pastors in Baptist life with what I describe as a very close relationship. Three have been in a peer learning group that I convene. For all four of them, ministry was not something they sought or wanted in life. One was a substance abuse counselor, one a park ranger, one a textile excecutive, and one was in social work. The last thing any of them planned in life was to return to seminary and become a pastor. For each of them, there was what they described as unmistakable sense of God's calling to the ministries they now pursue. Three of the four sought to avoid this direction thinking they had surely misunderstood God. Two tried serving on church staffs in positions more accepting of women. From what you are saying, Sandy, they all misunderstood God. They are all between 45 and 66 years old, so these are not the feminists of whom you speak.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Sandy,

Not everyone reads and interprets those passages as you do. I think the history of Christianity since the Reformation era bears out that truth.

Getting back to the subject of this thread - David Rogers even admits that there are people who interpret those passages differently than you who do indeed have a very very high view of the Bible and do take the Bible just as seriously as anyone else. Rogers just thinks that those egalitarians have interpreted the Bible incorrectly.

[Tim Bonney]

[Stephen Fox]

Lot has been said and I have just given it a cursory review but on the fly I have two, maybe three points.

first, thanks to William early on for recognizing that I can make a point.

Two, to Gene Scarborough, I disagree. I don't think David is as hard nosed, nor as narrow as his father. My exchanges with him and Ginny Brant have been most civil and virtuous. I may be deceived but I hold out the generousness, that had they been the key players their folks and networks were in the late 70's, there might not have been a takeover.
I concede I may be wrong.

Three. Had no idea Montoya's family was that diverse on questions of SBC orthodoxy.

I am inclusive, just have a hard time staying a member of a Baptist church for long at a time after my first 18 years.

[David Rogers]

I just got an e-mail from Stephen making me aware of this thread. Sorry for being so late to the party...

In any case, I am curious if any of you over here have any response to the main point of my post. I am not really interested in discussing the merits, or biblical validity, of women pastors here. My post was mostly directed to fellow conservative complementarians. But I would love to hear from some of you Baptist egalitarians if you think:

1) it is really possible to carry out the implications of both complementarianism and egalitarianism peacefully and productively in the same local congregation;

2) if not in the same congregation, is it possible to do so in the same association or denomination; and,

3) if we cannot peacefully and productiveley cooperate together in the same Baptist organizations, can we at least pray together, and accept each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, and treat each other as such (along with all the biblical implications that go along with this)?

[Blake]

[William Thornton]

[David Rogers]

Blake,

Thanks for you response. I suppose that, if you call what was going on in the SBC previous to the Conservative Resurgence peacefully and productively carrying out the implications of both complementarianism and egalitarianism, you are right.

But it seems to me, this is such a loaded issue, the peaceful and productive part of it is bound to be continually threatened, according to the "balance of power" at the time.

I guess my question, if I concede your point, is: Does it really make the most sense for both complementarian and egalitarian Baptists to cooperate together in projects like theological training and church planting? It may be possible. But, would we not get more done, more productively and peacefully, working separately, while continuing to recognize each other as legitimate parts of the Body of Christ?

[David Rogers]

William,

From my perspective, your answer begs the question of what is the purpose and function of Baptist associations.

My take is that they should not, biblically, be viewed as local microcosms of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is necessarily broader than just the Baptist churches in a particular locality. Thus, it is incorrect to say that, when we declare a certain group outside the bounds of cooperative agreements, we are "disfellowshipping" them.

Now, I know that many (if not most) Baptists have a slightly different view of this than I do. But I think that, biblically, my view is correct, and may be a solution to an otherwise thorny conundrum.

Should Baptist associations, for example, expel churches that don't practice believers baptism? Why or why not?

[William Thornton]

[David Rogers]

William,

My view on favoring or not favoring a Baptist association taking this action hinges, to a certain degree, on one's understanding of the function and purpose of Baptist associations.

I am prospectively working toward a PhD dissertation (at SEBTS) on the topic "Gospel-Centered Christian Unity: Implications for Southern Baptists and World Missions." One of the key ideas in my current understanding is that there is a difference between gospel-centered unity and cooperation in ministry projects. i see Baptist associations, and denominations in general, as orgnizations for the purpose of cooperation in ministry projects, but not necessarily gospel-centered unity. Any "unity" we may have, as the SBC, or Baptist assoications, is centered on a narrower agenda than the gospel alone. Otherwise, either you must hold that paedobaptists do not truly believe the gospel, or admit paedobaptists as full-fledged members of the SBC and Baptist associations.

Once you single out the issue of believers baptism to delimit cooperative agreements, why not the issue of women pastors, as well?

The NT gives a number of "one another" admonitions to Christians. I believe we should treat all true gospel-believing Christians in accordance with these "one anothers." That is the practical implication of Christian unity. However, I do not believe this necessarily demands worshiping together in the same congregation, or cooperating for ministry projects in the same association or denomination.

Paul and Barnabas are a good example of two brothers in Christ who could not agree on a particular matter, and decided to work separately, as far as ministry project was concerned, while still recognizing each other of legitimate brothers in Christ, and treating each other accordingly.

[William Thornton]

Mmmm, still not sure where this will go. We could certainly call all of our various levels of SBC life what we will, but if churches are excluded on the basis of a woman as sr pastor, I don't see how that changes how women, or churches on either side will view it.

You are certainly familiar with associations, state conventions, and the sbc. How do you view them and what is your position on such groupings excluding churches on the basis of it having a female sr pastor? Are you trying to say that you view such actions as acceptable based on how you define it?

Wouldn't matter to me. I just don't see the value in excluding a church from even a 'ministry organization' on that basis.

The 'why not' question you ask has no end.

[Tim Bonney]

[David Rogers]

William,

Let me see if I can simplify it a bit more still...

I wonder if you agree with Blake's answers to the first two questions on my original comment here.

If you don't agree on question #1, I think it is an extremely pragmatic issue. How can a church have women pastors and not have women pastors at the same time? In order for both positions to peacefully coexist, you must, by default, defer to one group's convictions or to the others. They are mutually exclusive.

If you do agree with Blake in his answer to question #1 and question #2, let's try the following example. Two autonomous Baptist congregations agree to cooperate together on a project to plant a new church. One of these congregations is convictionally complementarian, and the other is convictionally egalitarian. When it comes time to name a pastor, or elders, for the new church to be planted, will they consider naming a woman? If they do, would they not be obligating the members of the complementarian congregation to violate their conscience and convictions?

It sounds like to me, what many moderate Baptists are saying (or at least implying) is, the onus is on complementarians to be more accommodating to the egalitarian perspective, and, by inference, to women pastors. But, why should one group force its convictions on the other group? Is that really unity? Or is it coerced uniformity? That sounds more Catholic than Baptist to me.

[David Rogers]

Timothy,

As I said above, I'm not really interested in discussing the merits, or biblical validity, of women pastors here.

I take the view I do not because i have a cultural bias toward women, but because my understanding of the Bible demands it. You can denigrate my understanding all day long, and the cultural ramifications, but if you really want to convince me you will need to present a cogent argument based upon biblical exegesis.

The point is, for whatever reason, we disagree on this issue. Does that necessarily mean we cannot treat each other as brothers in Christ, though?

[Ed Pettibone]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Never heard of equalitarian myself, Timothy.

I think you mean egalitarian.

I'm surprised you were not familiar with the term as it's not used exclusively in a religious context. I saw the term used often in my Political Science classes - usually when reading books or articles dealing with economics, social/political history or philosophy.

[Blake]