The Undeniable Outcome of a Woman Becoming SBC President

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.

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.

Voddie Baucham and Ethnic Gnosticism

An incredible discussion by Voddie Baucham entitled "Ethnic Gnosticism" in which he discusses what he calls the "unpardonable sin" of ever violating the current standards about race issues.

Kamala Harris: Mike Pence is a Bad Man Because . . . Well, Because

“I disagree with him when he suggests it’s not possible to have meetings with women alone by himself. I think that’s ridiculous — the idea that you would deny a professional woman the opportunity to have a meeting with the vice president of the United States is outrageous.”

Kamala Harris – candidate for President – commenting on Mike Pence’s adherence to the Billy Graham Rule.

Since I’ve already addressed Mike Pence’s following the Billy Graham rule, I won’t make the same observations again (Mike Pence Episode - Honor Means Nothing (Unless a Feminist Says So). 

What Ms. Harris is doing here is mere political theater and raw emoting.  It is not real, it is not sensible, it follows no logic and isn’t even rational.  It’s a sound bite that people can now re-tweet and like.  It offers no rebuttal of the Billy Graham rule; it offers no suggestions as to what Mr. Pence ought to do otherwise (other than implying he should meet, alone, with women who are not his wife).

More importantly, the statement is blatantly false.  Ms. Harris offers no evidence to suggest Mike Pence denies professional women the opportunity to have a meeting with the Vice President of the United States.  She just says it as if Mike Pence failing to meet alone with women means he never meets with women at all.  The absurdity of what she is implying, without saying it, would be pricelessly hilarious if she didn’t think that she was Presidential material.

This is the world we now live in.  People who claim they are competent to lead the most powerful country in the world don’t care if what they are saying makes sense or not.  As long at it gets votes, it doesn’t matter.  As long as it’s a good sound bite, it doesn’t matter.  As long as it  get likes on Twitter and as long as it SOUNDS like it’s fair-minded, inclusive, diverse, etc., etc., etc., then it doesn’t matter.

Never mind that such statements are illogical, irrational and false.  Why, after all, should we care about that?

Jesus or Nothing - Why Atheism Doesn't Explain Good and Bad

A while back I spent two days under the teaching of Dan Dewitt, the former Dean of Boyce College in Louisville, Kentucky.  Boyce is the undergraduate arm of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Dr. Dewitt wrote a small book entitled “Jesus or Nothing” as a perspective on engaging atheists with the gospel of Jesus Christ.  His attitude represents the best kind of thinking in this area.

Upon having read what many atheists (both the scholarly and otherwise) claim about the reality around them, one thing Dr. Dewitt struck gold with is the failure of atheism to provide a real basis for life’s experiences.  What I mean by this is that atheists don’t really live based on their professed reality.  Like the rest of us, atheists don’t like it when they’re lied to, or when someone cheats them, or steals from them, or does worse.  Atheists often do kind things for others, use clean humor, work hard at their jobs, pay their taxes, and generally behave in a “moral” fashion.  The problem for the atheist, no matter how hard the atheist tries, though, is explaining why the atheist cares about these things.  I find the websites of American Atheists and others instructive here, since there is always some effort to point out just how pleasant and thoughtful atheists are but without reference to any transcendent authority.  It’s as if human beings can somehow distill principles for living from somewhere but without having to explain where that somewhere is or whether there is a someone behind that something.

But why do atheists bother?  If we live in a cold-blooded universe which has no mind, no plan, no purpose, no thoughts, and no intent, then isn’t the best we can offer is that we are here because the universe is here.  Thus, you and I are borne of random activity which just happened to spawn not only life, but, ultimately, human life.   As a result, silly quaint notions of morality not only don’t matter, they can’t matter.  Yet, nonetheless, the American Atheists find themselves compelled to justify that they are somehow “good.”  Many atheists seem to not only claim they can be good, they WANT to be good.  It just doesn’t follow that the concept of good ought to enter the atheist vocabulary.

I probably ought to have called this blog Ironic Musings of a Puritanical Raver.  While I understand intellectually why the atheist doesn’t want God, because there are times when the demands of the Christian life befuddle me as well, what puzzles me is how often atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins insist religion is actually a “bad” thing.  Yes, sometimes Christians can come across as arrogant and pugnacious, myself included.  I repent of my arrogant and pugnacious days.  How is it not equally and more profoundly arrogant to claim that you are so brilliant that your human intellect, which by the way has its origins in a non-thinking, non-rational, non-logical, non-intentional, non-caring universe, can determine what is good and bad for people?  More difficult to fathom is from whence the atheist even derives such concepts as good and bad?  How can an amoral universe cause such concepts?  And, yes, the universe must have caused the concept, because the universe is all the atheist has from which to claim such causation.

More importantly, though, setting aside the incredible oddity that such a universe would cause us to come to a notion of good and bad at all, doesn’t such a universe imply that all of our actions are programmed into us from the very beginning?  If the first life that “sprang” into existence out of the primordial muck had a certain DNA, did not that DNA therefore contain all information necessary from which further life could spring?  If so, doesn’t it mean that we don’t have any control over ourselves, but simply operate based on pre-existing code embedded in us through that original piece of slime?  Thus, good and bad mean nothing since good and bad presuppose some sort of standard that transcends our programming.  Does anyone seriously say their computer was acting morally reprehensibly because it followed its programming when you hit certain key strokes? The only difference between us and our laptop or pad is we apparently have sufficient capability to strike our own keystrokes.  But isn’t even that simply part of the program?

The Christian worldview solves this problem and, frankly does so with simplicity and elegance.  A creator whom we call God set the material universe into motion for his own reasons, which we may never fully comprehend.  In doing so, he created human beings to bear his image – to provide a basic understanding of who and what he is.  Unfortunately, we humans decided image bearing was insufficient for us – we wanted it all – we wanted to be God, not just God-like.  In violating God’s one rule, we violated our image bearing status and warped and mangled it so that we now only faintly resemble the creator God whose image he intended we bear fully and completely.  God however, determined to save as many of us as he could, entered  the picture by becoming an image bearer himself.  Someone had to pay for the warping and mangling we caused and continue to cause.  God, in the form of a man, Jesus, the Christ, accepted the punishment we deserved by taking it onto himself through the means of a Roman cross in first century Palestine.  The debt paid, he rested in the grave for three days, only, by, yes, supernatural means, to rise to life.  If we repent of our sins and believe this truth, we are saved for all eternity to be proper, unwarped, and unmangled image bearers once again.

Yes, the gospel message sounds insane to worldly ears.  Yet, if it is true, then it solves everything, brings purpose, makes good and bad understandable, and provides a rational basis for living.  Atheism, ironically, only brings irrationality since it doesn’t explain how people actually live their lives.  We WANT to be good.  We WANT others to treat us rightly.  We WANT to believe our lives mean something more than mere existence.  We WANT to believe our choices matter.  If we are pre-programmed by the universe, it’s all meaningless.  Yet, people, yes even atheists, don’t live life that way.  Only the Christian worldview explains it.