Following debate on the role of women at the last annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the flagship seminary of the SBC has affirmed that “men alone” may be pastors.
At its fall meeting last week, the board of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) commended its president, Albert Mohler, for his view that “the SBC’s confession of faith unequivocally reserves the office and function . . . of pastor for qualified men.”
The board also resolved that the seminary would continue graduating men and women, “but with men alone reserved for the . . . title of pastor.”
The issue of women in ministry surfaced at the denomination’s annual meeting in June. Some SBC members wanted the convention to expel Saddleback Church—one of the largest churches in the SBC—for ordaining three women pastors.
Mohler, who had earlier written that Saddleback’s move was “an attempt to redefine” an official SBC position, spoke from the convention floor. “The words mean what the Southern Baptists said in the year 2000,” he said. “At the time, the word ‘pastor’ was used (for) pastoral teaching leadership.”
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Hurt and Healed by the Church” by Ryan George. To donate, click here.
Pastor Rick Warren, then-lead pastor of Saddleback Church, also addressed the convention, appealing to his fellow Baptists to overcome theological differences and treat each other as “allies.”
Prior to Warren’s speech, the SBC Credentials Committee had recommended the denomination conduct a study on how closely churches need to follow the SBC statement of faith. However, after Warren spoke, the committee withdrew its recommendation.
Responses to the resolution
Kyle James Howard, a trauma-informed soul care provider who earned three degrees from SBTS including a master’s in Theology, said the SBTS resolution “concerned” him.
“This doesn’t seem to be the overflow of sincere reflection and a desire to be biblically faithful,” he said. “This feels more like a weaponization of doctrine, because it’s very much pick-and-choose.”
He explained that SBC leaders often emphasize church autonomy when they want to distance the denomination from local churches. For example, the SBC has resisted the idea of a central registry of known sex offenders within the church, or other proposed reforms to protect vulnerable women and children.
“In these cases, the Southern Baptist Convention has been adamant that it cannot hold churches accountable,” said Howard.
However, he said, the emphasis shifts on other issues. “When it comes to what gender is qualified for the pastorate, they basically assert that they should be able to police every congregation,” said Howard. “So, I do believe that there is something hypocritical about that process.”
Similarly, evangelical author and longtime student minister Sarah Bauer Anderson, who has been involved with several SBC churches in Virginia and Georgia, said the resolution reflects a “narrow” segment of Baptist views.
“Every entity needs to have a sort of litmus test to determine who fits with their group,” she said. “It becomes problematic when the checklist for admission and inclusion is made up of non-foundational doctrines to the Christian church.”
In contrast, Oklahoma Baptist pastor Scott Patton tweeted about the resolution: “Thank you @SBTS our biblical doctrine has not changed! My hope is the other SBC Seminaries and some SBC Entities will follow suit.”
Another pastor, Jerett Olson of New Hope Baptist Church in Dexter, Maine, stated online: “It is sad that they had sit down (and) discuss it again,” he said. “All the 12 Apostles were men. The Twelve Tribes were men. The priesthood were men. Women have equal value but different function in the church.”
Is pastoring synonymous with preaching and teaching?
Since the last SBC annual meeting, Mohler has issued a statement with other SBC leaders seemingly equating the pastorate with preaching and teaching—and disqualifying women from both.
“. . . The role of pastor is biblically defined and is to be held only by men as qualified by Scripture,” Mohler’s statement reads in part. “Central to the pastor’s role is the responsibility to preach and teach.”
Chuck Kelley, Richard Land, and I offer this statement about the Baptist Faith & Message in hope it will be both clarifying and helpful to Southern Baptists. @rdland @chuckkelleyjr pic.twitter.com/nNiD3LePoF
— Albert Mohler (@albertmohler) July 29, 2022
Howard, who disaffiliated from the SBC in 2017, believes there is “room to have discussion” on the question of how Scripture defines the office of the pastor and its qualifications.
But the larger issue to him is how the recent SBTS resolution implicitly affirms that the pastorate and preaching are “synonymous.” Howard explained: “When you begin to conflate those two things, you are then muzzling women from exercising spiritual gifts such as teaching, proclaiming the Word, and preaching.”
Anderson, who wrote The Space Between Us about finding common ground, urged believers who differ on these issues to “lead with curiosity” and ask honest questions such as: “Why is the role of pastors for men-only such an important issue for you?” “What has led you to believe women can teach?”
She added: “We will never get to the underlying motivations if we simply label any dissent from our own beliefs as ‘heretical’ and shut conversation down.”
Freelance journalist Josh Shepherd writes on faith, culture, and public policy for several media outlets. He and his wife live in the Washington, D.C. area with their two children.
English 
Spanish
59 Responses
Jerett Olson / New Hope Baptists Church / Dexter, Maine: “It is sad that they had sit down (and) discuss it again,” he said. “All the 12 Apostles were men. The Twelve Tribes were men. The priesthood were men.
They were also all Israelites. Which suggests it’s time for the SBC to get more genuinely biblical.
As my old pastor used to say “The way you go into the Bible usually dictates the way you come out of the Bible”
There never has been a debate about women being “allowed” to Pastor in the SBC. The SBC was taken over by Fundamentalist who blame women for many of the problems their men leaders have created. They do not take all of the verses literally in the old and new testament, but not surprisingly take 1 Timothy 1:12 Literally.
The SBC has a multitude of problems such as sexual abuse by Pastors, etc., but little to nothing has been done about this.
But the men leaders can beat their chests and say we will not allow a woman to preach.
I believe that the the head spiritual leader of the church biblically is to be a man and scripture affirms that.
I believe the same thing Bob. I am perplexed as to why there seems to be confusion on this issue when the scripture is so clear.
Perplexed? Scripture is clear about A LOT of things IN THEIR CONTEXT AND THEIR TIME. You have likely lusted but I’m guessing you still have both of your eyes (Matthew 18: 8-9) or if you sin without knowing it, kill and unblemished ram for God (Lev. 5:14) and He that is wounded in the stones (testicle my guess) or hath his privy member cut, shall not enter the congregation of the Lord (Deut. 23:1) or Elijah shows that he is a man of God by bringing down fire from heaven to kill 102 men (2Kings 1:9-12) or do not swear by oath (Matthew 5:34-37 but we do it to marry, to be a juror, or a witness or so many things. Oh and “very truly I say unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood” (John 6:53-56) and “through seeing, they may not see, through hearing, they may not understand ‘ (Luke 8:10). There is so much there in just those scriptures alone, not to mention so many hard to believe, nearly impossible scriptures of the law that we would never do in 2022. Perplexed. I’m Perplexed that men are still thinking women should just teach Sunday school and cook the Sunday potluck.
There are a lot of biblical illiterates in so-called “modern Christianity“ that cannot read the clear meaning of scripture and apply it to the church today. Male leadership is one of them. A real head scratcher.
Whenever somebody uses the phrase “clear meaning of SCRIPTURE”, I remember my time in-country during the Dispensation of Hal Lindsay. When the Demon Locusts of Revelation were “clearly” helicopter gunships with chemical-weapon “stingers” piloted by long-haired bearded Hippies.
I see a whole lot of non-biblical terms coming in here that are, well, not biblical.
For instance, ‘head spiritual leader’. This would be the Holy Spirit, would it not? Nor do we have ‘leaders’ as in ‘archons’. We have ministers who serve with varying gifts, including prophesy…as in speaking out the word of God; what we call preaching (when we mean teaching). We don’t have ‘head’ ministers either, with any scriptural standing.
.
We have a plurality of elders who might employ teachers in various roles, and ensure that the congregation is equipped for mutual pastoring…but, no; easier to put an unbiblical authoritarian spin on the passages where Paul forbids women to disparage men, invert the order of creation in favour of the then surrounding paganism, and to be unduly loud in the meetings, calling out to their husbands across the room for explanations.
Bob, do you also believe that women should “not braid their hair, wear gold or pearls? That one is three verses before the main complementarian verse often quoted. I am fine with literalism, just don’t pick the verses you agree with and ignore the others. Or, have the honesty to say your cherry picking.
Dan Allen,
“I am fine with literalism, just don’t pick the verses you agree with and ignore the others”
You have just summed up modern church leadership and why I no longer listen to what these men say. We have the 10 commandments (which are no longer taught or followed by most ministries) and the ministry of Christ to clear up the confusion of how we are to live, which seems to be the reason these “head spiritual leaders of the church” no longer preach from MML and J, instead they clobber together a sermon from a verse or 2 from 5 different books, that promotes their agenda, not God’s. If they did, they would very quickly loose any “authority” they believe they have over their fellow man. Their job is to preach the word and lead by example, not wield power over them. When they are challenged scripturally they will label you as an apostate, biblically illiterate, or throw Romans 13 at you, not address the issue raised.
It was my joy and privilege to be part of an excellent Bapti-costal church which affirmed women in leadership.
Church leadership considered I Timothy 3:8-13 where the apostle is discussing the qualifications necessary to be a deacon and he very definitely seems to be describing a man’s job.
However, writing to the Romans, he calls a woman (Phoebe) a deaconess (16:1)
Also, writing to Timothy, and talking about the qualifications required of elders (or bishops, depending on the translation) Paul again seems to being describing a man’s job. (3:1-8).
Writing to the Romans, however, he calls a woman (Junias) an apostle. (16:7)
Finally, I find it interesting that even though the Apostle stated very specifically that women could prophesy in church (I Corinthians 11:5), there are those who teach that the gift of prophecy is (very conveniently) no longer operative in the church today. How exactly did they come to that conclusion?
“How exactly did they come to that conclusion?”
Probably because prophecies have passed away, and tongues have ceased. ie Cessationism.
Interesting, isn’t it, how even one supposed author can seemingly contradict himself? Or maybe the scholars are correct who say that Paul probably only wrote seven of the books/letters attributed to him (including Romans). I and II Timothy and Titus are considered pseudepigraphic. The remaining three are heavily debated, largely because of the significant stylistic differences in the writings compared to the seven genuine Pauline works.
So I Timothy was probably written by someone other than Paul – someone who wanted to minimize the growing influence of women in the new church.
I think it would benefit a lot of Christians to not only study the theology of the New Testament, but also how the whole thing came together. There’s a wealth of scholarship out there that you probably won’t get at your typical Bible college.
Jack – do you have any resource suggestions on learning how the New Testament came together? Specifically, something oriented for the layman who hasn’t been to Bible college.
From Texts to Translations by Paul Wegner is excellent.
The undisputed book of 1 Corinthians doesn’t even allow women to speak in church at all. So, debating the authenticity of the pastoral epistles won’t suffice as a work-around for this particular issue. My personal take is that these directives are best understood in the context of the first century, and don’t carry the force of universal ordinances which are more of a moral nature. I’m curious if Rick Warren has anywhere articulated his take on the issue, knowing he runs against the grain of the SBC.
That’s quite an interesting introduction of Kyle James Howard, “a trauma-informed soul care provider.” I don’t know that give five years ago anyone would have known what that meant. Actually, I don’t know that anyone REALLY knows what that means now.
I’m with you Philip. Sounds like a ‘Water The Flowers’ word salad. But I note that Kyle does like word salads, he talks about ‘genders’ when he clearly means ‘sexes’. We all know there are 295 ‘genders’…probably actually as many ‘genders’ as narcissists who want to keep giving me their pronouns…which ones can be ‘pastors’, I wonder.
It is interesting that we are living in a church-age where the lines of the “church” and the “world”are becoming indistinguishable. Terms/phrases and their meanings are reinterpreted to be apropos for their subjective context. Meaning redefinition of what is or was accepted as sound doctrine is now in question. Take gender, people are encouraging children to question God and His Word. The questions are based in their identity. Once you can put a wedge in the minds of the impressionable then you have challenged that which falls in the ones of normalcy and theological absolutes. The gender reassignment surgery is bold sinful questioning of God’s sovereign design. The church is in scope a microcosm of this issue. However they are parallel in nature. Churches and denominations are redefining norms that have been clear. People use subjective situations to redefine their perspectives on “Pastors”. Sin nature is in both genders. The Old Testament proved that. Priced the need for Christ. The New Testament/Covenant is built in better promises. However if we deviate like the world we are like Laodicea. God will spit us out!
Ah, yes. Every perceive breach of theological purity now boils down to gender identity. Twenty years ago, it was all blamed on non-cis sexuality. Fifty years ago, it was blamed miscegenation and uppity black people, and a hundred years ago it was all blamed on women’s suffrage.
I guess when you’re on the defensive, it’s just easier to lash out and demonize minorities than it is to make your case through sound theological and ethical arguments. It was ever thus.
This second paragraph of this comment is a bad faith attribution and attacking of others motives, which you couldn’t possibly know. The first paragraph is a cobbled together timeline that gives the appearance of establishing something factual but which also relies on assumptions, projections, and unestablished assertions.
And nowhere does the comment address the substance of the comment to which it replies. It’s essentially a long ad hominem attack.
Well, the initial comment is demonstrating ignorance to the difference between sex and gender. As a female (sex) who is a woman (identity), I grew up with all sorts of accusations and instructions from “the church” and my “Christian school” on what I should look like, act like, think wear, and like to “be a woman.” I’ll spare the details of how I struggled with insecurity and esteem because I didn’t “like” the things girls (identity) are “supposed” to like. But to this day, I prefer blue to pink, love football (Go Cowboys!), will put on a pair jeans before any skirt in my closet, rarely wear makeup, will order takeout before cooking, and have ditched my high heels for flats ever since covid gave me the excuse I needed to prefer comfort over style.
Am I less of a woman? According to “the church” and my “Christian school”, yes. But I say NO. (And my boyfriend is VERY grateful that I’ll happily sit alongside him and watch the Bears – or Cowboys). THAT is what part of the fight is about.
I oppose sex changes – I think God knew what He was doing when assigning biological sex to each of us, and it breaks my heart that ANYONE would think otherwise. But if we stopped forcing males to act certain ways “to be a real man” (or forcing females to like skirts “to be a real woman”), I wonder if some of this confusion among our young people would stop.
So what has gender reassignment surgery got to do with the question of whether only men are allowed to be pastors?
I mean, if the comment I was replying to had an actual argument in it, rather than being one long diatribe of revulsion, then perhaps I would have had something more substantive to say in response.
If the comment was so lacking substantive and off topic, then why respond at all? Yet you felt the need to go on the attack in response to it.
We hold to many differing understandings of the idea that the Bible is the (living) Word (of G_d/God). The crucial and complex issue across that field of understanding, appears to be how we view the relation between what is God-centred and what is earthly or worldly or secular.
My own view has it that we have to take wisdom from the Bible. Where we have to view and understand the script constituting the Bible, in the contexts and circumstances of its various moments of being authored or articulated. When we then look to the wisdom we might take from that Bible, we are inevitably viewing and understanding from our moment of existentiality and circumstance and context. That wisdom is a moving feast, of which we partake in our time, more spirit than scripture.
There is then another pole in this field of understanding. The SBC position on women and scripture, seeming to represent that pole. Here the context of Biblical authoring (in its various moments) and the context of our approach to gleaning Biblical wisdom, is negated and set aside (in all its complexity). Spirit is displaced by scripture, wisdom by theocratic certitude.
We then have freedom to chose what pole of approach we favour. Who and what we walk with.
What are you articulating? I will attempt to respond. Your statements seem incongruous to scripture and my simple brain. Your statements read as subjective, to be fair. Regarding “Moments” and “Scripture”.My aim is to research what the authorial intent is. Meaning that I have to get out my “moments” to the vintage. Jesus had an important message about the Spirit. John 14:18-31, is the place where Jesus makes connection between the Spiritual and the Truth of His Word. This context is interesting. John penned those words approximately 60 years after those words were spoken. Verse 26 is specific in the clarity of the Spirit and Scripture and how they function together. “We hold to many differing understandings of the idea that the Bible is the (living) Word (of G_d/God).” I agree. That is why we are accountable to God. How we handle His Word? Do we believe it the ultimate authority for life? As relates to gender, spiritual gifts are not gender specific. However the offices are. Women may preach/teach but not to exercise authority over men. The only place women were to remain silent was to test prophecy. That was for the elders according to Paul. What the moments in society because of depravity have swung the pendulum too far as it relates to gender. Which is unfortunate and sinful.
Hi Jamie
I have a question that I ask when someone uses the phrase “exercising authority.” Could you please define what that look like in specific actions?
Dee, my thoughts: Functionality in the context of the local church is a premise. For example, when it comes to public prayer/prophesying. I do not believe women should remain silent. I would say the same fact for a male. Women/men are to remain silent in the context of testing prophecy. In fact the authority exercised with prophecy is supposed to be by a plurality of elders. Not just anyone. A man or a woman may bring what he or she believes is prophecy. Elders must evaluate that prophecy with scripture and their dependence on Christ. The other authority is preaching the Bible. I don’t believe that females may hold the office of an elder based on the Bible. I do believe they may function as deacon and every other function in the church. Women aren’t disqualified from the office of an elder based on lack. It’s not a measure of quality but a measure of qualified. My structure and dynamic understanding is based on Pauline epistles. Women and men in context of the gathering or assembly are not to exercise authority with the Word. Only men who are qualified Biblically may handle the word in the assembly of believers (FEMALE/MALE). I believe the authority is not in the preacher but the Bible. When the truth of God’s word confronts your life. The authority is not your decisions but the Bible. John MacArthur, the apostle Paul, King David, Abraham, Eve, Sarah, Mary, Elizabeth, Al Mohler, Joe Stowell and Apostle Peter will all fall. Follow the authority of the Word of Christ as they have displayed. When they fall short, remember that only Christ fulfilled the law and is the yes to the promises of God. He’s the senior pastor of the church!
“Take gender, people are encouraging children to question God and His Word. The questions are based in their identity.”
Jamie, I think you see our current moment. The crucial aspect in this is the Protestant impulse to view and judge things from the totality of who we find ourselves to be (our identity).
What God might be, and what the Bible (as Word) is taken to be, is to be come to across personal experiencing, rather than being handed down to us by some nominal agent of the Word.
Christianity is in a moment where it needs to be dynamic rather than structured and static.
It is unfortunate that the approach to current gender issues has become so polarised. People who are in visceral disagreement working to absolutely contrary understandings of gender.
Trans people are just the latest targets in a long line of minority “threats” now that gay marriage and gay adoption are no longer polarizing enough to amp up enough outrage and fear in the right wing Christian community for their purposes.
Heaven forbid these people put the same amount of effort into, like, you know, ending child poverty in the US.
This is just more ad hominem like your previous comment, along with whataboutism. Do you have nothing of substance to say?
Ad hominem? This is documented history. Conservative Christians didn’t give two hoots about trans people when they were busy opposing gay rights and subsequently fighting the legalization of gay marriage. But then, once they lost the battle over gay marriage, which now enjoys strong majority support (around 70%) in the US, all of a sudden trans people are seen as an existential threat to American society.
It couldn’t be more obvious.
Correction: It couldn’t be more obvious to you.
The rest of your comment is just more of your subjective spin on things. The rest of us don’t necessarily feel compelled to see things your way, which is obviously a problem for you.
I disagree with that assessment. Identity is crucial as relates to the finished work of Christ. From a structured (historical) perspective, Christ died and rose again in accordance with the scriptures. That’s my identity From a “dynamic” moment, my identity is constantly conforming me to Christ and His Word. A perspective can both be “structured” and “dynamic”. It seems canceling one at the expense of the other is a polarizing equation.
A visceral disagreement is that which loses control. That is where a dynamic perspective without structure tend to end up at. These are polarizing moments. Society is waging war against God’s structure or design. At this present moment gender is the identity to which society has waged war. Society has permeated another visceral disagreement in this cultural moment. Now we live in moments of censorship. Freedom of expression is no longer being tolerated. If dynamic expression eclipses structured biblical norms. Then totalitarian behavior will engender the minds of the church and society. I respect that you have articulated your perspective. It’s when you or I do not tolerate the other’s thought. We end up in visceral disagreement. Which would unfortunately mirror society.
I’m sure Mohler and the gang will also be as aggressive in ensuring that the men in ministry are not predators and abusers and swift discipline will come on those who are.
George: I am expecting Mohler and his gang to do something any day now. Not really! Myself and others have been waiting decades. But once again SBC pastors can stand in front of their congregations and tell the women what their places are.
Scripture seems clear but women shouldn’t feel slighted. Our role is certainly influential and important. We are by no means second class creations, especially to God. We obviously have the skill set to be effective pastors.
There will always be people who rebel against God. Our part is to make sure we aren’t a contributing factor to their sin.
The question now is which preacher hasn’t committed some sexual sin or two. Is there a pastor that hasn’t enriched himself and his family? Which denomination – lead by men – hasn’t covered up the abuse of women and children in their care? Definitely, it wasn’t nuns that made the decision to sic known pedophiles on one unsuspecting church after another.
There were several decent conservative men running for president, but no, Christian leaders backed a man with a pattern of abusing women, makes comments about their beauty or lack thereof, and even makes sexual comments about his own daughter!
Females of all ages are under relentless threat of sexual harassment, or of being raped by coaches, bosses, strangers, and more heinously, family members and “hot youth pastors.” But let’s focus on sodomites. and remind us all that men rule.
In the same way parents shouldn’t provoke their kids to anger, men should get their act together.
Debra, that is great you feel scripture is clear on this matter. But there are many women who do not share your view-are they all wrong?
“But there are many women who do not share your view-are they all wrong?”
Logically, if Debra’s position is right, then the opposite position would be wrong, and vice versa. There’s a clear implication in your own response to Debra that her outlook is wrong because there are other women who disagree with her. Why is it ok for you to imply that she’s wrong but not for her to believe others are wrong?
I also agree with Debra, but will take MY argument further (please do not conflate with Debra, as I am not speaking for her).
Scripture is also clear that God will still accomplish His will, even if we do not follow His design. We see God bless Hagar and Ishmael despite the sin involved in his conception. We see God continue to bless prophets who had multiple wives. So I do believe that if men do NOT step up and fulfill their role, God WILL raise up and empower a woman to do so. I think that is part of what’s happening in the church. Women have significantly outnumbered men in every church fellowship in which I belonged. There were no men to teach Sunday school – but there were plenty of women who did. I have NEVER seen a woman “overrule” a man in such matters as preaching. But I HAVE seen a woman step up when no man was willing.
This is about spiritual warfare. As it is in the physical, when it comes to war, you take out the men. Instead of being so pressed on why women are teaching, we need to be MORE pressed on WHERE are the God-fearing men?
It’s been that way since Jesus Christ picked his 12 apostles. Even after Judas was replaced he was replaced with another man. I don’t recall there being an Apostle Mary or any other women apostles. After hard hitting pagan feminism the last 100 years we’ve got a big increase in female pastors. The only places feminist can point to in the Bible to back up their claims that God wants female pastors are in the old testament where God raised up women to be leaders in Israel during periods where the people were disobedient to God because they were involved with idol worship. Some people just don’t want to accept that women aren’t to be leaders in the Church. It doesn’t mean women aren’t equal to men in importance to God. It means there’s different roles men and women have because God made it that way. That’s why women are generally physically weaker than men which is easily proven when you look at them compete in sports such as swimming. It’s not a bad thing because women are physically stronger in some ways such as being able to have a child. Women are greater than men in some ways. It doesn’t make them better than men. What we’re witnessing in happen today is a lot of people want to be in a social group and call it “church” when it’s not a church in the sight of God. A Church in the eyes of God is a group of his followers and his followers are those who seek to worship him in truth and spirit. Truth is God doesn’t want women to be the leaders of the Church.
In all four Gospels, women either encounter the risen Christ (or an angel) and are told to go and tell the others. The first act that Jesus does post-resurrection is to commission women to be his witnesses.
None of those women became pastors. In the old testament the only women who took religious leaderships roles were women such as Jezebel and that queen mother in Judah who almost killed all male children nearly wiping out the line of Jesus Christ.
“None of these women became pastors” is an oddly assertive statement to make in light of my observation that the risen Christ commissions them to be his witnesses. Pretty sure we dont have a definitive history of every single thing every early believer did (so, any one of them could have been in some sort of pastoral role). So even if they didnt take on some sort of official pastoral role (which is also like, a minefield to sort through what that means, especially for the first few generation of believers), Christ establishes a new way of living and I think by speaking first to them, it shows how radically inclusive things were intended to be.
Those women weren’t called to be apostles. The 12 apostles were to be the leaders of Jesus Christ’s Church. Stop trying to gaslight me with your nonsense. If Jesus Christ has called those women to be pastors I would agree with you, but he didn’t do that. It’s been well known for thousands of years now that women aren’t to be pastors over God’s Church. It’s only been a recent issue in America where women are claiming it’s good because of feminism which has roots in paganism.
While I agree that we have the original 11/12 Apostles, there were other lower-case apostles and if we’re in disagreement about that idea, it’s not gaslighting. The idea of “women being leaders in the church is a modern American phenomena because of feminism/paganism/whathaveyou” is also ignoring 2000 years of the various streams and pockets and forms of global Christianity.
“….
This plea for women preachers may be also refuted by another answer.
If the rightfulness of actions is to be determined by their results, then evidently it ought to be by their complete results.
But who is competent to say whether the complete results of one of these devout blunders will be beneficial or harmful? I will grant that a zealous female may convert or confirm several souls by her preaching. But isn’t it also possible that she may, by this bad example, in the future introduce an amount of confusion, disturbance, strife, error and scandal which will greatly outweigh the initial limited good? This question cannot be answered until time is ended, and it will require an omniscient mind to judge it. Thus it becomes perfectly clear that present seemingly good results cannot ever be a sufficient justification of conduct, which violates the clear Word of God. This is our only sure guide. Bad results, following a course of action not commanded in the Word, may present a sufficient, even a commanding reason for stopping. Likewise, good results following such action may suggest some probability for continuance, however when the course of action transgresses the command of Scripture then such probability becomes worthless….”—Robert Lewis Dabney
“Women Preachers”
https://www.biblebb.com/files/RD-001WP.htm
The fight over women preachers have been going on for a long time! R.L. Dabney made his commentary in 1879!
I found out later that R.L. Dabney while highly intelligent, highly religious, highly educated–was very racist❗???? He was an aide-de-camp for Stonewall Jackson, I believe. While he was a pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology – – he remained unreconstructed during the Reconstruction period!
“10. and have been clothed with the new man that is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it.
11. Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all.” (Col 3:10-11, NETfree)
The question I’ve been asking myself isn’t whether God wants women to be leaders in a church; it’s whether God wants leaders in a church at all. Is a church supposed to have a human leader with human followers, or is Jesus to be the leader of the church with all of us as followers? Is a church a business hierarchy or is a mutual community?
It’s pretty clear.
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
–Hebrews 13:17
Perhaps I didn’t make my question clear. For example, is the leadership contemplated in the above referenced passage the leadership model observed in the modern church? Is the church meant to be structured as a business with buildings, debt, tax exemptions, public relations and personnel departments, etc. or is the church meant to be an organic community? Is a church leader to be considered as equivalent to a CEO or manager of a company, or is a church leader simply someone in your community who has the necessary wisdom and experience to guide and shepherd those less mature in the faith? If a church leader is the later, is this role limited to men only?
As far as The CEO question is concerned on another Roys Report thread that had an answer to that, It falls under the category of, “I wish I had said that”❗
https://julieroys.com/prosperous-lifestyle-americas-anti-prosperity-gospel-preacher/comment-page-8/#comment-95954
Hebrews 13:6-9, 12-16
6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
Pretty clear the preceding verses are pointing to God, HS, and Christ as our leaders, not man.
This is exactly why one of my goals for 2022 is to avoid prooftexting. Chapter and verse were not original to the Bible. Context matters.
I do believe they are wrong because I believe it is simply what scripture says, and what the entire Bible affirms. What I don’t know, is why they believe they are right?
Maybe they misinterpret scripture, or maybe they don’t care as long as they’re happy and fulfilled. What I know for sure, is it is a position that checks a lot of boxes if you desire attention, admiration and reverence. Add wealth to that list. I also know, we all have a way of justifying our sins.
Maybe they simply love sharing God’s word. Several famous preachers have said their mom was the best preacher in the family. I am not saying women need to wash the dishes and be quiet. I just don’t know why the mandate is offensive.
John Hopkins stopped doing sex reassignment surgeries for a time because so many wanted it reversed or committed suicide because they STILL weren’t happy. From head to the toe, and in between, God made men and women different. While we have shared strengths and weaknesses, we cannot mimic the differences. Like a jigsaw puzzle, we are designed to fit together to complete a picture of Christ and His church.
Without attempting to decipher anyone’s motive, we have to admit the position has morphed into a glorious position that can entice men and women – to pursue for nefarious reasons.
Debra: Thanks for answering the question. What I’ve always found interesting about Fundamentalist is they believe they are right and others are wrong. Thankfully some can say they might be right or wrong.
Also if you think being a woman pastor in this day is a glorious position-I do not understand why you would think that?
Tom,
No! No! No! I do “not” believe women preachers are “glorious.” Woman can teach/share God’s word in many ways other than calling themselves pastors or teaching men. I actually think it is shameful that it doesn’t seem to give them pause that scripture is pretty straight forward on the matter.
It saddens me that the pastor/teacher role has reached celebrity status. Admiration can be very ruinous.
It angers me that Christianity as a whole has become a Commodity.
I also do not call myself a “fundamentalist”. However, God’s word is “fundamental” to everything in my life.
Much of scripture interpretation is understanding why a passage says what it does. As an extreme example take Psalm 137:9 “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.” Nobody takes this at face value. We’re left with subtler interpretations as to how we understand this as God’s word, which requires us to ask why does this passage say this? Al Mohler’s approach is to interpret literally unless it’s impossible to do so. Others approach interpretation by trying to understand why a particular passage is there, and how it integrates with the totality of scripture. Sometimes theology is determined by methodology.