I am writing to Southern Baptists specifically in this post,
although the general points are valid across denominations. To clarify for any non-Southern Baptist
readers: SBC = Southern Baptist Convention; SBTS = Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary; Lifeway = main provider of Sunday school and other teaching material
for SBC churches (also a large provider of books); Baptist Faith and Message =
Document which purports to explain what SBC churches believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been much discussion lately about the role of
women in the SBC, including the suggestion a woman could be SBC President.
The argument generally tends to go like this: (a) the SBC is
not a church; (b) since the SBC is not a church the provisions for pastors in 1
Timothy and Titus and other Pauline admonitions about men’s and women’s roles
don’t apply; (c) there are plenty of women who could serve well in leadership
roles, therefore, (d) it is okay for the SBC to have a woman in a key
leadership position. Basically, this
view appears to argue the SBC has no theological skin in the game when it comes
to men’s and women’s roles in the church.
Whether women serve as leaders in secular roles is something
the secular world can decide. The SBC,
however, is not the secular world (right?).
While it is true the SBC is not a church, it would seem peculiar and odd
to me that the main doctrinal statement forbids women from acting as pastors of
churches, but somehow permits the titular head of the organization that unites
those churches to be a woman. That
strikes me as a bit hypocritical at best; misleading at worst.
Let’s try an analogy.
The NFL is primarily an organization of men. Why?
Because only men play in the NFL.
Why? Because on average only a
very, very small percentage of women are large enough and physically sufficient
to even play kicker or punter in the NFL.
So the NFL is run by men, played by men, and its commissioner is a
man. Does the NFL require its
commissioner be a man? No. Does it make sense for the commissioner to be
a man? Yes. And it’s not because the NFL is trying to be
sexist, it’s just the reasonable thing to do.
It makes sense under the circumstances.
Since it’s an analogy, it’s not a perfect fit. But here’s the problem for anyone who would
argue against it: the SBC has even less reason than the NFL to have a
woman running it as president of any of its significant entities (Lifeway,
seminaries, SBC itself, etc.). Here’s
why.
First, the Baptist Faith and Message is very clear about only
men serving as pastors. Why? Because that’s what we understand the Bible
tells us and we claim we are people who believe the Bible is inerrant and means
what it says. To permit women to serve
in significant leadership capacities undermines this belief because it signals
that while women can’t serve as pastors, they can serve in roles which can
significantly impact how pastors serve in their role. It would be a strange argument for anyone to
say being President of the SBC is unimportant but then claim it’s so important
we get a woman in to serve there.
The naysayers will argue that SBC polity (how the SBC
organizes itself) doesn’t permit the SBC president or any other entity head to
tell pastors what to do and then enforce that decree. That’s true but it’s an obfuscation. The SBC as an organization, like any other,
takes its collective cues from its leaders.
If the leaders are women, then their impact will be felt on the pastors
within the SBC. It isn’t absurd to say
that an SBC member might reason that if the president says X and the member’s
pastor says Y that maybe the SBC president ought to be listened to in light of
the “importance” of the position. To say
otherwise is to say the SBC president is a mere figurehead. Ask those involved in the Conservative
resurgence if the SBC president is a mere figurehead (hint: NOT). The same is true of seminary presidents and
other such leaders. Who can argue the
massive influence Dr. R. Albert Mohler, president of SBTS has had on the
convention the past 25 years?
Second, just because something is permissible doesn’t make
it reasonable. Gosh, I might be out of
my mind here, but I think some guy named Paul said something about all things
being lawful but not all things are helpful (see 1 Cor. 10:23). Just because you can do something doesn’t
mean you ought to do it. Just because
the SBC isn’t a church and, therefore, technically isn’t limited by the
admonitions in 1 Timothy and Titus concerning male pastoral leadership, that
doesn’t mean the SBC should start seeking out women to lead its major
entities. By the way, this isn’t a
competence argument nor is it a pragmatic argument. I have no doubt there are plenty of women
within the SBC who could do a fine job as president of one of its
entities. This is an argument from the larger
theological picture. If the SBC starts
permitting women to serve in such
capacities it weakens the claim that only men can serve as pastors. Once the SBC starts on this path, it will
never swerve from it and will soon follow every other major denomination into
women in the pastorate. It’s an
inevitable slippery slope.[1]
Naysayers will argue that this won’t change the 2000 Baptist
Faith and Message, so SBC churches will still have male pastors. When your words and your actions conflict,
research shows that 93% of the time people believe your actions and not your
words. (Albert Mehrabian, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at UCLA). In our media driven, everyone knows what everyone
is talking about and thinking about world, it will take only a very short time
for everyday John and Jane Baptist to get the message that the SBC leaders really
mean that women can be pastors, even though those aren’t the words coming out
of their mouths. The message reminds me
of the old Gatorade commercial with Michael Jordan and Mia Hamm in which the point
is that the gal can “do anything better than” the guy. But that’s not the theologically correct view
when it comes to pastors, according to
the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message which serves as the unifying bond among
cooperating Southern Baptist Churches.
Once you undermine that bond, you undermine the entire SBC.
Third, this is no more than a nonsensical reaction to the
recent Paige Patterson dust up and other moments in the SBC and broader evangelical
world where women have been treated poorly.
The way you stop such treatment isn’t to elevate women into positions of
power but to teach men how to properly treat women. I do agree that my wife is not to accept that
all men have authority over her because the Bible doesn’t teach this. However, she is to accept my headship and she
is to accept that the local church is to be headed by a man because the Bible
does teach these things. If the SBC acts
in ways that undermine the proper biblical understanding, regardless of motives,
it is wrong. Women as entity heads may
be borne out of a genuine desire to “right past wrongs” or to “recognize women’s
contributions” or because women are "equally competent" and so forth. However,
these desires, noble as they are, cannot become more important than absolute
clarity regarding what Scripture commands.
Installing women as entity heads will muddle the message. We should not do anything that creates potential confusion about what we believe.
Fourth, and don't think there isn't a connection, this movement, however well-intentioned, is the baby step towards eschewing the SBC position on homosexuality. I've written myself that we haven't done a bang up job of being good neighbors to homosexuals. That said, the response to being a good neighbor isn't to chuck out ages of clear understanding of Scripture. By the way, the slavery comparison isn't going to work here - chattel slavery was not a behavior - regardless of what we think, homosexuality is ultimately about behavior and it's never forced on anyone against their will. We cannot, in the name of reason or rationality or the right side of history ever, ever toss out the words of Scripture. There is NO safe harbor Scripture for homosexuality. That means we should use all tools at our disposal to work towards seeking conversion of homosexuals so they may know the joy of freedom from sin. Berating people for their sin doesn't work well but ignoring it doesn't work well, either.
Finally, many have argued that secular ideas about inclusion and diversity support women as SBC entity heads, as if these ideas have any biblical basis. Often the "every tongue, every tribe, every nation" language in Revelation is used to justify this emphasis. Ironically, though, those words, penned by our brother, John, show what happens not when you ignore biblical language but when the world is saved from itself by virtue of Christian witness. Being welcoming, if it is going to retain any Christian distinctive, can't mean we allow people to remain in sin. It can't mean we ignore Biblical prescriptions for who operates as the head of the local church. It can't mean we do anything that undermines anything the Bible says. Having women serve as SBC entity heads doesn't do anything but suggest to the world that the SBC has caved in to worldly views. It hardly cries out to the world that the SBC is distinctive or following Scripture.
Fourth, and don't think there isn't a connection, this movement, however well-intentioned, is the baby step towards eschewing the SBC position on homosexuality. I've written myself that we haven't done a bang up job of being good neighbors to homosexuals. That said, the response to being a good neighbor isn't to chuck out ages of clear understanding of Scripture. By the way, the slavery comparison isn't going to work here - chattel slavery was not a behavior - regardless of what we think, homosexuality is ultimately about behavior and it's never forced on anyone against their will. We cannot, in the name of reason or rationality or the right side of history ever, ever toss out the words of Scripture. There is NO safe harbor Scripture for homosexuality. That means we should use all tools at our disposal to work towards seeking conversion of homosexuals so they may know the joy of freedom from sin. Berating people for their sin doesn't work well but ignoring it doesn't work well, either.
Finally, many have argued that secular ideas about inclusion and diversity support women as SBC entity heads, as if these ideas have any biblical basis. Often the "every tongue, every tribe, every nation" language in Revelation is used to justify this emphasis. Ironically, though, those words, penned by our brother, John, show what happens not when you ignore biblical language but when the world is saved from itself by virtue of Christian witness. Being welcoming, if it is going to retain any Christian distinctive, can't mean we allow people to remain in sin. It can't mean we ignore Biblical prescriptions for who operates as the head of the local church. It can't mean we do anything that undermines anything the Bible says. Having women serve as SBC entity heads doesn't do anything but suggest to the world that the SBC has caved in to worldly views. It hardly cries out to the world that the SBC is distinctive or following Scripture.
We have seen the carnage that has occurred in the Episcopal
and Methodist churches – all of which started with leaving the inerrancy of
Scripture behind and opening up to non-biblical notions of “empowering women”
by making them pastors. Many other main
line denominations have followed suit and their decline has been precipitous. The SBC is declining as well but advocating
for women in such positions only means more and faster decline. It is a bad idea.
That some SBC leaders are promoting this idea can only mean
one of two basic things, neither of which provides much hope: (a) they are not
thinking carefully about what they say in public or (b) they know full well the
implications of the message and want the inevitable outcome. I’m not sure which is worse.
[1] I
know some people think the “slippery slope” is a cheap argument, but that doesn’t
make it any less true.
