David Rogers Prays with Women Pastors

[Tim Bonney]

[David Rogers]

Timothy,

Fine. As I have said all along, we just disagree about this. Right now, I don't really have the time to get into the hermeneutical details of all of the relevant Scripture passages on this issue. I hope you don't interpret this as dodging the issue. Perhaps at another time I will come back and engage you (and others here) at that level. But, I think you would agree it is a pretty complex discussion, and beyond the scope of the point I hoped to discuss when I entered this conversation.

Back to my main point. Let's assume you arrive at the conclusion that you are never going to convince me of the correctness of your position on women pastors. Does that necessarily put up a barrier between you and me sharing spiritual fellowship? Why or why not?

[Blake]

David, once again we agree, but I think a missionally driven people will find ways to cooperate and unite with like minded Christians for the sake of the gospel. This does not mean that we should try and merge denominations together. Denominations usually exist for good reason. Bridging those theological divides is often too difficult to be practical. What we have been discussing since the beginning is the place of the complementarian doctrine in the SBC. Whether a church be SBC by confession and practice in all places but the issue of gender roles does not seem akin to merging denominations. The theological difference between your run of the mill SBC church and one that shares the same confession and convictions but has a female pastor is a petty one and to divide over it unnecessarily is to betray our missional identity and calling. If Calvinists and Arminians can get along in our denomination as historically distinct and different as they have been, then I see no reason why that degree of tolerance can not be given to egalitarian congregations or people who practice speaking in tongues. These issues are petty and not worth not being unified over. My issue is that the SBC has unnecessarily overreached in defining its distinctives to the harm of our ability to be as missional as we could otherwise be.

[David Rogers]

Blake,

Do you think that if egalitarians within the SBC had the same level of influence that complementarians currently do, they would be any more tolerant of complementarians and complementarianism than complementarians currently are of egalitarians and egalitarianism?

I don't see any evidence from the comments here on this thread that they would be.

We all, if we are honest, have our agendas. And competing agendas don't easily make for peaceful and productive cooperation.

My personal take is we can probably see more accomplished for the advance of the Kingdom by agreeing to disagree on this one, and work on separate "ministry teams," than continually bickering with each other, trying to move ahead our agendas in denominational life. Will the current discussion on Calvinism and Arminianism come to this as well? Hopefully not. But if it does, it would not be the first time that Particular Baptists and General Baptists worked separately, as far as ministry cooperation is concerned.

[Stephen Fox]

[David Rogers]

Stephen,

Insteresting parallel, that of Dillard's "singing with fundamentalists" and my "praying with women pastors."

Thanks for your comments on my graciousness. i receive that as a genuine compliment, and am humbled by it.

In regard to Fleming Rutledge and Barbara Brown Taylor, I would have to listen to them personally (something I confess I have not yet done) before I admit to not agreeing with you on the greatness of their homiletical abilities. I have heard other female preachers who I consider to be among the truly great communicators of our time, though.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: David I am not sure that Tim or I for that matter do not like the term Complimentatian. For me I do think it is the SBC leaderships application of the term that is a thorn in the side.

And David I think perhaps we have reached an impasse if you expect the rest of us to to judge what you say here based on what you have written elsewhere, such as in you blog. Just above you get bent out of shape about how Tim B. interpreted you based on what you have said here and you quote your self as saying on your blog "But… there are also those who believe in the legitimacy of women pastors who do not have a low view of the inspiration of Scripture. Call it sloppy hermeneutics. Call it cultural blindness. Call it what you will. If I am honest, I must admit that not every one who believes in the pastorate of women does so because they believe the Bible is not the authoritative Word of God, or because they are just being disobedient to what they know the Bible really teaches." And there was this exchange [ Ed: But yes i do see the writers of scripture doing so (writing of pastors only as males) as a holdover from their upbringing in a misogynistic society. to which you reply David: This phrase betrays what I consider to be a low view of Scripture. I don't think God is limited in His ability to accurately reveal His will to us due to the cultural prejudices of those He uses to do so.]

So who is insulting whom? Your view of scripture is no higher than mine they are simply different. But since you accuse me of holding a "low view of scriptures", please tell me David what is you view of the academic field of study known as higher criticism as applied to the Bible, so that I do not risk putting words in your mouth. And going back to the post from extracted your quote from me, tell me does the earth have four corners?

And as to you adult / child analogy, you rightly explain why it isn't in the scripture. I believe Paul did not go that far precisely for the reason you state. But he did include the Male and Female phrase. Therefore using your logic as to why he did not include children he he must have felt women where just as qualified as men to hold any position in the church. And there is no contradiction with the specific instances where he prohibited women from speaking . Those women for some reason other than gender where not qualified. I speculate that it had to do with their lack of preparation since he referred them to their husbands for answers.

[Jim]

[Blake]

[David Rogers]

Timothy,

The way i would word it is our fellowship is based on a common family relationship with the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. There are some doctrinal considerations that delimit this relationship, but these are primary essential doctrines, not secondary or tertiary ones.

However, there are differences on certain points of secondary doctrine that can get in the way of peaceful and productive collaboration in certain ministry projects.

Let's not deternmine our fellowship on the basis of criteria that are more helpful at the level of ministry cooperation.

[David Rogers]

Ed,

I can see where you would take the term "a low view of Scripture" as incendiary, especially when viewed in the same context as the term "higher criticism." Sorry about that. From my understanding, though, if you must continually analyze Scripture by the criteria of possible cultural prejudices of the human authors, it places us, as modern-day interpreters, in the place of ultimate arbitrers of the present-day validity of a command of God. There are, no doubt, practices, such as "the holy kiss," that are culture-specific applications of eternal principles. But the principles still hold true. Others have written at length on the biblical principle of a chain of authority (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Cor 11:3, 8-12, 16) and Paul's reference in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 of Adam & Eve, not just the context in Corinth and Ephesus at the time of writing, as the justification for his instructions. And I don't see how my view of Scripture necessitates taking the four corners of the earth as literal. Practically all inerrantists readily acknowledge the Bible is chock full of metaphors that are to be taken as such.

On another related topic, some of you may be interested to read what I wrote at SBC Impact defending the legitimacy of female deacons.

[David Rogers]

Blake,

I have enjoyed the discussion as well. It seems to me our views are not that far off from each other on this. Blessings.

[Gene Scarborough]

David & Timothy---

I speak as a lifetime SBC member who has been forced out by the narrow view of theology recently adopted and then further adopted in NC with respect to Women and Ordination. Further, my father came out of a little narrow country church outside Athens, GA, where they told him to go to Mercer would ruin him for use as a Preacher. He didn't agree and went on to Andover-Newton for his Seminary training. There, he encountered his ostricism as he graduated from a "foreign" school and was, in addition a single man!!! How "ungodly!"

Through my lifetime I was well-versed in the value of AUTONOMY = we work together for the Cooperative Mission Enterprise. Therefore, snake-handling mountain holy rollers could give alongside the Charleston High Church practitioners of "Baptist." We majored on Missions and minored on Theology. All that changed with the CR Takeover. Now we were demanded to either sign on BF&M or be cast out! If you could not say "Inerrant Bible," then you were an Infadel bound for Hell.

This change to a creedal mode over a cooperative mode was the core of the issue. Beyond that was the lines of connection with Pastors such as David's Father or others who did not fit the mold or way of thinking. Before 1979, Convention Presidents came from the ranks of "top 10 giving to the CP" churches rather than those who walked the CR walk. I don't see it as helpful nor positive when fighting and fussing replaced Cooperation without theological judgementalism. We can all thank W.A. Criswell and his like for the changes. He was, without a doubt, a control freak ultra-conservative breathing fire.

I have seen and experienced it---and anyone without a full lifetime of SBC affiliation could never begin to comprehend it.

I chose to follow the SBC call rather than that of the UMC (which I well could have adopted since I graduated Emory University and could have easily gone to Candler and become a UMC minister). In such a decision, I would have found protection in the DS as I was assigned to a church. I could have received a higher pay because, at the time, Methodists paid better than Baptists. I would have given up the opportunity to own my own home. I would have found far more fellow ministers of like mind than I did in towns and Associations where I served. In each, I found more fellowship and kinship with my UMC fellow pastors than I did with Baptists. They just showed more level-headed lack of wierd personality because the UMC candidate has to pass a Personality Profile as well as have a solid academic background. Baptists let any and every person saying he is "called to preach" have a shot at a pulpit!!! God help the "she" called to preach.

David is reflecting his dad, as did I. My dad would have been one of those "liberal skunks" Criswell hated because he was a traditional rural Baptist boy, well-educated at Mercer and Andover-Newton. He refused to be intimidated nor told what to think of do as an AUTONOMOUS Southern Baptist. Timothy is reflecting a reasoned change in calling after experiencing life as a Baptist.

Both Timothy and I ask, "If God has called a woman to preach, what is the problem with recognizing her as equally God-called as a male?"

[William Thornton]

I appreciate some of the thoughts on this but it looks too much like a construct that justifies exclusion of churches with women SPs and throws the responsibility for such on the excludees not the excluders.

Example: An association with longstanding doctrinal statement amends it to call for a male only pastorate. No associations I've been in had this prior to bfm2k and not all adopted that as their associational doctrinal statement. Any church after that who has a woman SP may be excluded by vote of the group. According to your construct the fault of that lies with the 'offending' church which is undermining associational unity by calling a woman sp.

I don't think that reasoning sells very well and nor do I believe that the action is ameliorated by the excluders maintaing a stance that they will still cooperate for ministry and the like.

Add to that the old fashioned baptist reality that we love to expand the parameters for membership.

My stance as a pastor is that a man should fill the position of sp but I would not use that to exclude a church which did so from my asso, state conv or sbc.

Most of the participants here are mod/libs. Not a few are exSBC.

I rather think that the SBC of 2040, about the length of time in the future that I have served as a pastor to this point, a significant minority of SBC churches will have female pastors - a safe conjecture, since I will likely not live to have to say I was wrong about it.

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

William--

I think your assessment is both fair and balanced!

I was a member and was ordained by Decatur (GA) FBC. It has always been on the cutting edge of "Baptist." They were excluded from the GBC last year because they had a woman pastor. I assume you voted against such exclusion if you were at the meeting.

In addition to being on the "cutting edge" as a progressive church, Decatur FBC had a more than normal number of HMB employees and Executives as members. They were a strong giving CP church and affirmed all thing SBC----up to 1979. At that point they saw changes they could not abide, but continued to give to missions---both SBC and CBF.

Now, I expect my Ordaining Church could care less! They are dedicated to social ministries. They even backed a retirement home giving preference to Baptist elderly as a step into meeting the needs of our current time.

FBC Decatur has always been cooperative with the other churches of Decatur as it is a suburb of Atlanta getting many foreign-born citizens. They have been attractive to the educated elite of Emory which is closeby. Being on the cutting edge is always dangerous. They were progressive with racial and ethnic issues. The "thinking Christians" of Decatur found a solid spiritual home at FBC Decatur.

I gladly claim my spiritual kinship to them and rejoice that they have been the "church of choice" for BSU members at Emory. I pray for them a bright future as they welcomed their new lady Pastor and Associate. Their continued growth bespeaks the wisdom of not being "traditional Baptists."

[David Rogers]

Gene & William,

I am not intentionally ignoring your last comments, but I don't see much to say, from my perspective, except to say we just disagree on this. I am doing my best to present my views and my reasons for holding them. In the end, it is before our own Master that each of us stands or falls (Rom 14:4). I guess we'll have to leave it at that for now.

[David Rogers]

Timothy,

Yes, that is what I meant to say. I am not sure, but perhaps what is confusing you here is the somewhat nuanced distinction I make between fellowship and cooperation. This is a key idea behind all I am saying. As I understand it, the circle of fellowship is almost always wider (or at least ought to be) than the circle of cooperation. We are one in Christ with all the saints throughout history and around the world. But it is only with a limited subset of the Body of Christ that we actually cooperate together on specific ministry projects (i.e. the SBC Cooperative Program). Fellowship, as I see it, is the practical outworking of our essential unity. It is manifested in Scripture through the various "one another" admonitions. Look them up. There are about 40 or so. It does not necessarily entail giving money to the same project, or voting the same way in a denominational or associational meeting, though.

[Gene Scarborough]

David---

While I appreciate your right to enjoy the SBC that your dad and CR created, it is NOTHING LIKE the SBC which I enjoyed when we viewed AUTONOMY as a call to cooperate without condescending.

The focus on Missions was an inspiration to grow and expand. The focus on Theology put in place pre-1979--and brought to its conclusion with your father's election as Convention President in Houston---was a total re-direction away from the ideas and values of those who founded the SBC, in my opinion.

Yes, God is the judge. It has taken many a year for the truthes to become known far and wide. The failed economy has the SBC on a financial edge even their vast reserve accounts cannot continue to sustain. The NAMB's change to New Church Planting is a far cry from the significant ministry going on in the HMB of my upbringing and early ministry.

I don't blame you for defending your father and CR. I am equally defending and advocating for the kind of relationship which made the SBC have such significant growth in the late 50's to 1979 = AUTONOMOUS. Since the 1979 Takeover, things have not been anything but negative.

Let me ask you to respond on this: At Houston Bold MIssion Thrust was at the head of the proposals. It involved the use of the Baptist TelNet Transponder to allow for the presentation of the Gospel to EVERY human on this planet with a dish antenna to receive the signal. Suddenly, BMT disappeared as we began to fuss and fight over theology and the Inerrant Bible. Now Pat Robertson owns the transponder space!

Do you see Satan's hand in diverting us from maximum use of a new technology to spread the Gospel to fighting over what the nature of the Bible is?

I see it as a clear tactic by Satan, himself, to keep the Gospel of love / forgiveness / getting along with one another as brothers in Christ despite personal differences.

So what is your view on this matter?

[David Rogers]

Gene,

Fair enough question. I'm working on another assignment right now and can't give the time necessary to give you a good answer. Hopefully, I may be able to get to it tomorrow sometime, though.

[Jim]

While interesting, this thread provides no surprises. It’s virtually certain that no minds have been changed. This forum is essentially mod/lib, with preaching to the choir a virtuous exercise, though surely at some point terribly boring. The same can be true, I feel sure, vis-à-vis forums that are predominantly conservative. I’m not familiar with other forums. I’m a conservative (CBF-oriented, an oddity) so I get hammered here and find that exhilarating.

The mod/lib interprets the Bible as informed by his place on the moral high ground. The conservative interprets the Bible as informed by what it says – in his view – and nothing else. Both use the same scriptures and come to different conclusions, nothing unusual about that. The scriptures seem very clear text-wise (literally), at least to some conservatives (except me) or the fundamentalists, that women should not serve as lead pastors or whatever else the head honcho is called. Those same scriptures are read by the mod/lib, who insists on either a different interpretation or making them take a trip through the culture scene, both then and now. I’ve formed my own view, using the keystone of Baptist thought – priesthood of the believer.

The SBC is the daily whipping-boy in this forum, made up by many former SBCers, including me. I still contribute to Lottie Moon because I think that’s a good work. I don’t much care for the doctrinal squabbles. The only gripe I have with the so-called resurgence is the often outrageous dislocation of principled people it caused. Some lost out entirely, lost everything in losing their jobs altogether. That was dead wrong and there are many people to whom the SBC owes a lot but, of course, will never pay-up. That is exponential sin, engendered by a “take no prisoners” position, the resort, whether first or final, of the fundamentalist.

But the mod/libs can be supercilious to a fault, looking down on those with whom they disagree and accuse them of whatever in pejorative terms. That’s been seen in this thread. They can be divisive and disagreeably so, even publicly. Case in point: the Carter/Clinton NBCC (this will harpoon me) of January 2008. Carter had very publicly – media ate it up, also hating SBCers – that the SBC was made up of insensitive, negative (his term) folks and dis-invited them to his “togetherness” project and made certain that it coincided with the ending of the black conventions, thus insuring the “togetherness.”

Carter is no doubt gung-ho for female pastors – fair enough. He can find his position in scripture, especially as he occupies the moral high ground. He has also proclaimed publicly that same-sex unions should be codified in the law and can find, one supposes, scriptural mandates for that…except that homosexual behavior is literally a black/white issue in scripture, except as it is plowed through the moral high ground and thus sanitized.

So…what is to be said? A better part of this thread has dealt with cooperation or the lack thereof. With respect to the ordination of women, I believe they should have it if they’re called into ministry, but I don’t claim to have a corner on the theological truth, and that’s what separates me from the mod/lib, who, operating on the moral high ground and not just the Bible, would never make that concession. Nor would the SBC hierarchy, with its fundamentalist surety, so it’s back to square one. At that place, I can cooperate with the SBC and CBF, but I’m not an employee in the systems, so I have nothing to lose materially. As long as the women in the SBC are satisfied with their place, I have no quarrel with the CR gang.

[Gene Scarborough]

David---

That's OK and I know you are a busy person.

Sadly, over at SBC Voices---I raised such issues and it was as if I had no right to bring it up. For me this is the REAL ISSUE over CR. It brought a level of divisiveness to the SBC not seen since the Norris Controversy nor that with Elliott over Genesis.

Here we were on the threshold of using the latest in new communications technology and we flushed our opportunity away---and in it's place showed the world how supposed followers of Christ can kill one another over the exact definitions of what is the nature of the Bible. They just want to see people getting along while claiming Jesus is the source of such love and forgiveness.

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]