Joel Gregory on the best in Baptist preaching

George Bullard on the Associated Baptist Press blog profiles the newly released volume entitled Baptist Preaching: A Global Anthology by Dr. Joel Gregory, Professor of Preaching at George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University. Dr. Gregory arguably remains one of the finest biblical expositors today albeit his banishment from mainstream Southern Baptist sub-culture (whether just or unjust as the case may be). Gregory's role in choosing for Baylor University Press just who qualifies as most representative of the best in Baptist pulpiteering is all the more impressive.

According to Bullard, Gregory lists six preachers all bearing certain qualities:

They could not be all white guys in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. That would not be representative; much less politically correct. Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity was mandatory. Some geographic spread was needed. Preachers from a variety of denominations were essential. Left out were about a third of the Baptist denominations in North American who are not part of the Fellowship.

Consequently, Gregory's choices were:

• J. Peter Holmes (Toronto, Canada)
• George Mason (Dallas, USA)
• John Piper (Minneapolis, USA)
• Jacqueline A. Thompson (Oakland, USA)
• Tonya Vickery (Cullowhee, USA)
• Ralph D. West, Sr. (Houston, USA)

Since the Southern Baptist Convention is no longer wed to the Baptist World Alliance, understandably, no Southern Baptists were apparently considered. Very sad.

Question: if Southern Baptists had been considered, who might fit the qualifications Gregory apparently used?

 

Read George Bullard's entire book review: "Which Six Pastors Best Represent Baptist Preachers? A Review of Joel Gregory's Glogal Anthology on Baptist Preaching" 

Comments

[Joel Gregory]

Peter,

Thank you for mentioning the book. A couple of observations. This was not an effort to select the best preachers but rather an effort to reflect representative preachers noted by their peers and BWA leaders. I join with you that it is a great sadness to have no SBC preachers in the book. Many are friends. I could make a long list of able candidates. It is sad that the SBC decamped from the BWA and we hope that some day they may find a common ground again.

In a larger context, the book contains remarkable preaching from global Baptist preachers that demonstrates Christ-centered. biblically based Christ-honoring preaching.

Regards, Joel Gregory

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Gregory,

Thank you for clarifying your volume's overall purpose. In case you might stop by and glance again, would you care to offer a quick response to my question: "if Southern Baptists had been considered, who might fit the qualifications Gregory apparently used?

Lord bless, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Scott Shaver]

Joel:

Great to see you interacting here. Has been a while my friend.

[volfan007]

2 women preachers listed as 2 of the best? I hope they're just preaching to women, and I certainly hope that they're not Pastors.

David

[Scott shaver]

VolFan:
Your religious jealousy of and bias toward females is showing.

[Scott Shaver]

Volfan 007 obviously wants to demonstrate the perceived superiority of his interpretive views on the roles of women in Christian ministry.

[Richard]

Volfan, I'm assuming your comment was tongue-in-cheek?

[volfan007]

No, my comment was not tongue in cheek. I meant every word. The Bible teaches that women should not be the authority over men in teaching doctrine, and women should not be Pastors of a Church. Of course, the Bible does teach that women can teach other women and children....but, they should not teach a man, or be the Pastor of a Church.

1 Timothy 2:12

1 Timothy 3

Titus 1

Titus 2:3-5

2 Timothy 3:15

David

[Scott shaver]

VolFan:
You've waved your colors and proof texted your interpretive approach.

I guess the fact that I'm neither convinced or impressed leaves me weak on scripture and loose on doctrine.

What else "scary" do u have?

[Lydia]

Just curious, what age would a boy become a man and a woman can no longer teach him?

[John Rollyson]

If only SBC pastors were considered, I would have chosen: Tony Evans, David Jeremiah, Johnny Hunt, Fred Luter, and Robert Smith. Dr Evans and Dr Jeremiah are my two all time favorite preachers anyway :-).

[Scott Shaver]

Too much good logic in that question to be "scriptural" Lydia.

This comment definitely tongue-in-cheek.

[volfan007]

Scary? lol

It's the Bible. I just try to surrender my thoughts and beliefs to what the Bible teaches. 1 Timothy 2:12 seems very, very clear to me. Also, the qualifications for a Pastor talk about a MAN being a faithful husband and LEADING his family well....not a person, or a woman. It's just too clearly taught in the Bible.

It's not my culture, or personal preferences. If the Bible taught that a woman could be the lead teacher of doctrine over men, and a woman could be the Pastor of a Church, then I would believe that...I would teach that in my Church. But, it does not.

David

[Lydia]

"It's the Bible. I just try to surrender my thoughts and beliefs to what the Bible teaches. 1 Timothy 2:12 seems very, very clear to me. Also, the qualifications for a Pastor talk about a MAN being a faithful husband and LEADING his family well....not a person, or a woman. It's just too clearly taught in the Bible."

David, Some of us simply disagree. "Tis" means anyone and is not gender specific. And if it is so clear then you would also have to agree that single men would not qualify, according to your interpretation, since they cannot be faithful husbands or leading their family well. There are so many other considerations but I am sure Peter does not really want to go there. 1 Corin 11 where women are prophesying in the body but the question is whether to cover or not while doing it. Junia is a woman apostle (small a). Nevermind there is not one single prohibition in the OT against women teaching or leading men. Not one. Practice is another story. Prohibition?

The "rules" are not as "clear" as you want to make them. And historical context plays a huge part in all interpretation. The historical backdrop of Ephesians is a game changer for the typical specific gender role interpretation of 1 Tim.

I often wonder if the Philippians know of these specific "roles"? News traveled slow back then. :o)

[peter lumpkins]

Well, I'm not sure I wanted the thread to go in the direction of gender roles in ecclesial application, but I for one would not be afraid of the conversation. I'm what one would call a soft complementarian and believe the biblical data most comprehensively supports that perspective (not hard complementarianism, however). Biblical egalitarians--soft or hard and either justly or unjustly--were confessionally squeezed out of SBC in the latest edition of the BFM (2K). Clear and simple.

For all the scriptural evidences which support the role of women teachers and leaders in the church, I'm afraid there is no such thing in the NT as a female pastor. She doesn't exist, if at all, except through strained implication of a few proof texts. The ideals are tellingly absent.

Let the fight begin.

(just kidding!)

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Well, first of all, Pastors are to not only be faithful husbands to their wives, but they are also supposed to LEAD their families well. How can a woman lead her family well, whenever MEN are supposed to lead their families, and women are supposed to SUBMIT, or follow the leadership of her husband?

Secondly, it is well worth noting that only MEN are mentioned in the NT as being Pastors/Elders. And, the 12 Apostles were all MEN...even though women followed Jesus around, as well... still all the 12 Apostles were men. Why weren't any of the women included in the 12? I believe it's very telling that only men are mentioned as Pastors in the NT, and only men were picked to be the 12.

Thirdly, even look at the first Deacons, who were picked to serve the jerusalem Church...they were all men, as well. And, when you look at the qualifications of a Deacon, it's all about being a man of God. AND, the DEACON's WIVES are given qualifications....their wives are actually given qualifications to meet.

Also, 1 Timothy 2:12 looks to plain and clear to me.... especially when you look at the context of the verse, with Adam and Eve used as illustrations in the following verses. If you can explain this to me....and help me to see this any different...please do. Because, for the life of me, I cannot.

David

[Scott Shaver]

VolFan007

You my friend are the portrait of the modern day Southern Baptist Convention my friend.

Doesn't matter whether you're "reformed" or "tradtional" FUNDAMENTALIST.

Since Fundamentalists (of both reform and "traditionalist" stripe) appear to have no capacity for inductive reasoning, and actually think God despises such capacities of the human brain and intellect", the rest of Christianity is stuck with the same one-note-johnny tune from both sides of the Fundamentalist spectrum..."I believe my bible harder than you do".

Sell it to the people doing the SBC cheer-leading but don't expect all other intelligent Christians to partake in your kool-aid drinking.

Truth of the matter is, you interpret the bible your way (since you have the Holy Spirit cornered) and any deviation from your superior logic is inferior for edification and instruction in the Christian Faith.

Guys like our friend from TN, like to plant their flags, throw a few proof texts around...but in the end are incapable of engaging in discussions of context, history, application etc because that's not what they're about.

They're about declaring their superiority in the eyes of God because of their attention to theology. What a pitiful joke.

And just to give you some relief here Peter, I'm not at all even thinking about whether or not the Bible confines the role of pastor to males.

I'm thinking about the way the subject thread was hijacked to detract from list of superior "proclaimers" of God's Word to some nuanced and neurotic Fundamentalist argument about the role of women in ministry.

I wouldn't come or allow my family within 100 miles of this guy's church because he thinks his views are equal to God's base on his biased interpretation of scripture.

[Lydia]

"For all the scriptural evidences which support the role of women teachers and leaders in the church, I'm afraid there is no such thing in the NT as a female pastor. She doesn't exist, if at all, except through strained implication of a few proof texts. The ideals are tellingly absent."

Ha! That surely does not tell us much except for what things were like in the 1st Century. Unless you were a wealthy Roman woman with choices, women were pretty much considered chattel and sought position where they could in that pagan environment such as with the Temple of Artemis. We took the paterfamilias from the Greeks/Romans. Not God. God is a mutualist. :o)

I am often astonished when I read the implications of say something as seemingly benign as Luke 8 1-3. Now that is radical for the 1st Century.

But then I see many say that pastor/elder are interchangeable. Not sure I agree so I would ask for the references to specific "pastors" as it is not really mentioned in any event. For example, who was the pastor of the church/es in Corinth? Seems all we know is that "Chloe" had people.

So the question might not be whether "she pastors" exist in the 1st Century NT but if there is a specific clear "verboten" command for no "she pastors" on this earth. Since Deborah or say Huldah were not in sin for teaching men, I am wondering.....how we got so narrow over the last 30 years. After all, Mrs. Criswell taught a very large mixed class and was on the radio. Is that not a form of pastoring since most of this seems to be a problem with a woman in the pulpit and men in the audience?

We know female apostles, prophesiers, deacons, etc existed even though few, admittedly.

Seems Jesus was more radical than we give him credit for, sometimes.

Since I am not interested in the title of "pastor" only the practice of pastor, I get to do it all the time!

[Scott Shaver]

If the Old Testament pattern of God's interaction with humanity and self-disclosure on the basis of His being "no respector of persons", holds true in both a pre and post completed revelation, Why would we not expect exceptions to the rule of VolFan007's personal interpretation of gender roles?

I would add especially in light of the fact that such exceptions have occurred in both recorded and unrecorded history since the first century church.

[volfan007]

Peter,

Your comment moderation is throwing me off....lol. Please discard the first response, and use the second one. I think it's written better. Thanks.

David

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia

We're not talking about the context of the "pagan environment" but of the specific context of the NT church. And, you're correct, what we read in the NT most certainly reveals "what things were like in the 1st Century." But, in this case, in the 1st century church. And, Scripture reveals not even a hint of an elder (i.e. bishop = pastor) who was also a woman. It does reveal women who were servants (i.e. deaconesses). No women were pastors albeit they did some pastoral duties as does every other NT believer for that matter.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Scott,

Instead of going on a long diatribe about the evils of fundamentalism, and using personal attacks on me, why don't you deal with the text???? If I'm wrong, please show me where and how? I don't think I am wrong....I have studied these passages a whole lot...but, if you can show me different... then, by all means, go for it.

Lydia, there are NO female Elders/Pastors or Apostles or Deacons mentionoed in the NT. A person would have to jump thru small hoops and leap over huge hollers to make the NT teach that a woman can be a Pastor or a Deacon, or was an Apostle. Now, did women do great things? Most certainly. And, can women do great things for God, today? Yes, yes, yes, and they do great things for the Lord, today.

But, the roles that God has given men and women are different, and they're very clear.

David

[peter lumpkins]

Hurrah! David posted only one comment this time and not two! :^)

P.S. I turned moderation off. So fire away...

[Scott Shaver]

Paul said he "suffers not a woman to teach" what's your point VolFan007?

You've obviously directed the comment thread toward the role of women in ministry to make a point so I'll play your little one-note game.

School me with your superior apprehension of all things Christian.

[Scott Shaver]

Seems to me that if VolFan007 claims to surrender his thoughts and actions to what the Bible teaches, it must have been the Bible, not VolFan, that interjected gender roles in ministry into a discussion about a list of good preachers (proclaimers).

Despite it's own instruction against sowing strife and dissension.

VolFan, what do you do with the segment of Christianity that does not follow your strict interpretation of NT gender roles in ministry?

[Scott Shaver]

I can follow Peter.

Context is 1st century church. You've concluded along with me the lack of biblical evidence for women "pastor" according to biblical text.

My question has to do with the gut motivation behind all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over women doing what they've been doing in the church for thousands of years without the title "pastor".

Reality on the ground, NT supported or not, is that some Christian churches these days have elected to place women in the office of pastor and my question has to do with whether or not God completely writes off such fellowships.

I have my doubts that He does.

We're all in trouble over breakdowns in accurate interpretation if that's the case.

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

I personally lament Southern Baptists making, as a test of fellowship, whether the church is egalitarian or complementarian. I wish the BF&M2K had not addressed it, leaving local churches alone as to whether it would pursue one or the other. That's an idiosyncrasy I hold I suppose, along with my Separate Baptist ancestors, an inherent aversion to confessions generally.

Whatever my personal leanings are, however, we cannot unring the bell. We did it. We officially voted ourselves a complementarian denomination in 2000. That's who we are.

Hence, the writing off so to speak is a two-way avenue. CBF writes us off as clearly as we do them on the notion of gender. They don't want to be a part of us anymore than we do them and, as a denomination, they cannot confessionally be a part of us for that matter.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Scott,

God blesses and uses people, who love Him and OBEY Him. God blesses and uses people, who are truly seeking after Him, and are willing to FOLLOW Him. So, what about a Church, who has a woman Pastor?

I believe a church with a woman Pastor will suffer for it. There's no way that they can be all that God wants them to be, if they're not following the revealed will of God for the Church.

I notice that you keep hurling the personal attacks, rather than dealing with the Scriptures, which I gave you. Nice touch. Very classy.

Also, the reason I commented on women preachers is because Dr. Gregory listed women preachers in his top 5 list. SMH

David

[Lydia]

Peter, Pastor as in verb or noun? Does one "do" pastor or is it used as a postitional title? And where do we see only one? Is pastoring the same as preaching? I am at a loss where there is some specific outline of how the Body is to function. So I am to deduct that a woman could be an apostle but not pastor.

David, 1 Tim 3 grammar is singular. "A" woman not all women. Was Paul actually teaching I would be saved by child bearing? How cruel to barren women Surely not. But that is the "CLEAR" teaching of that passage, right?

I have not even started on authenteo yet. :o)

I still do not understand how there is a new prohibition on women in the New Covenant specifically concerning women teaching men when it was not in the Old one. Strange.

Is no one going to respond to Mrs. Criswell teaching men in her very large SS class of both genders? Some churches were that size. David?

[Lydia]

When Lottie Moon moved to Pingtu all alone for all those years as the only Christian there, she was "teaching men".

[Lydia]

I admit to not being a scholar but the closest thing I can find in the NT to the word "role" is hypocrite. As in acting. I could not fail to see the irony of such as thing as "roles" for believers in the Body. I totally affirm biological difference but spiritual ones? That is where I fail to see a pink and blue Christianity.

With Roles so "clear", what I am do to with a male Savior? Can I be like Him?

[Bill Mac]

Scott: I've sparred with Volfan over the years more times than I can count, over Calvinism, alcohol, and even women's roles. I'm a much softer complementarian than he is, especially regarding deacons. But your characterizations of him are unfair. I don't see eye to eye with him about his level of complementarianism, but his is hardly a "private interpretation", but a fairly common and mainstream understanding of the biblical texts. Disagree with him but don't paint him as some sort of rogue misogynist seeking to exert his fringe views on the SBC. I would happily visit his church as long as they turned the Yankee-detectors off.

[Bill Mac]

For David: The verse about Deacon's wives is actually the word for women, not wives. Some translations actually render it as deaconesses, not wives.

[volfan007]

A Pastor/Elder is a position in the Church. It is an office that a man holds, because he is leading and teaching the Church. It is not just a description of ministering to others. It is an office of the Church.

Also, the verse says that a woman should not teach over a man...period. It's not talking about some local woman in the Church...it's saying that a woman should not have that authority over a man....to be the authority in the room about doctrine. And, the illustration of Adam and Eve is used in the following verses, which backs up the meaning of this verse.

Also, a woman being saved in child bearing DOES NOT have anything to do with redemption, or salvation of the soul. It's about the fact that Eve fell in the Garden, and part of her punishment was to have pain in childbirth....but, women have a certain glory restored to them in childbirth, as well....men can't have children...women can...so, even though a woman was deceived and caused the creation to fall in the Garden of Eden, she will be restored to a certain amount of glory by bearing children, raising those children, and teaching those children about the Lord. Even though she can't be a teacher over men, she can teach her children.

Sometimes, God has to use women to do certain tings...if there's no men around to do the job. But, it's certainly not what God intended. And, the Church will suffer if women are doing what God calls upon men to do.

David

[volfan007]

Bill Mac,

I could see a Church having Deaconesses, who minister to the women of the Church, as being an interpretation of that passage. I know of some Churches, who have Deacons, to minister to the men, and Deaconesses, who minister to the women. I don't agree with that interpretation, but I can see it.

I really think the passage is talking about the Deacon's Wives, who would serve as a Deacon's Wife. She would be there to help her husband minister to people in the Church.

Also, thanks for your words above. And, if you're ever in W. TN, I would love for you to come to my Church to worship with us....in fact, right now, I'm preaching thru the book of Romans....I'm in Romans 9 at this present time. :)

David

[Scott Shaver]

Bill Mac:

Thanks for your "softer complimentarian" gesture.

I say "Bull Feathers" to your assessment of my characterization of David, VolFan or whatever his handle is.

I think I've pegged him right regardless of your relationship with him. All he's done is throw out texts. He hasn't dealt with them in any exegetical fashion except to take a prohibitive posture against women pastors.

As far as dealing with the texts themselves, what's he done other than offer his opinion that a church with women in leadership roles will "suffer".

Tells us how and give us examples of this "suffering" smart guy.

Again, Bill Mac may think this guy's motivations are pure and without guile. I say he's a spiritual sexist who can't avoid an opportunity to interject his views...whether they're on topic or not.

He's got his personal interpretation and views, I've got my opinion of his views.

Wouldn't darken the door of a church he pastors on paid invitation. I don't care whether his interpretation is correct or not.

It's his spirit I can't get around.

You've already offered him one point of correction on his selection of texts there Bill Mac. Since he's not offering any further exegesis or discussion of context except to whine about my "personal attacks", why don't you go ahead and explain what he means.

Especially since I've got him mischaracterized.

Good thing you're not a "scholar" Lydia, it makes for bad attitudes. Believe me, this guy is no scholar either.
Posted by: Scott Shaver |

[Scott Shaver]

Additionally Bill Mac:

"Rogue misogynist" are your words not mine.

And what you label as "fringe views" in the SBC appear now to be the mainstream.

A little late don't you think for anybody to counter "fringe views" in the SBC?

[eric]

Why is Scott so contentious about the issue of women?
Isn't the SBC's position that women are not to be pastors.
Scott, what Church are you affiliated with. I ask because if, for instance, you are an Episcopalian, I can understand your contention.

[Scott Shaver]

Eric:

"Contention" or addressing a wider frame of reference?

I'm affiliated with a local "First" Baptist church aligned with the BGCT.

[Bill Mac]

Read it again. I think you'll find that I did not labels his views as fringe, in fact I argued just the opposite. No, he is not suffering, just being the target of mean-spirited and exaggerated attacks for a view that I disagree with but is hardly novel or the product of unreasonable exegesis. Blog comment streams are not an ideal venue to provide in-depth doctrinal analysis and exegesis, which by the way you have not provided either.

Yes, contentious is the word.

[Bill Mac]

Living in the frozen north, I don't travel in SBC circles in meatspace, so I've never heard most of the big name SBCers preach. But I have heard Henry Blackaby preach several times and I've always thought he gave pretty moving sermons.

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

With Bill Mac I agree you're not striking rock with David Worley. He may be a "fundamentalist" but no more "fundamentalist" than I am. He gave his views citing biblical texts albeit not fully exegeting the meat from the texts. He could do it as could I, and I'm confident you could too. But to brush his view aside or imply he's nothing more than a "fundie" slobbering at the mouth is entirely unfair. Worley is an honorable Christian man and faithful SBC pastor. He's also a man I count as friend. What's up with that?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

Not sure the relevancy of your questions. "Pastor" a "noun" or "verb"? Well, to be precise, it's not either noun or verb but both noun and verb. As I said, women may do "pastoral" work since there are many "pastoral" acts all believers do regardless of whether they are male or female. But the NT terms pastor, bishop, elder used to denote an office in the church are all contextually male-driven. As I see it, that's fairly indisputable. There's just no way around this exegetically.

Now, you can go to the egalitarian website and pull answers to what I've just indicated. Granted. Then, I'll turn right around and offer scholarly counterpoints I find on another website to each and every point you log. We'll get nowhere.

The fact is, the Southern Baptist Convention is officially a gender complementarian denomination and has been since 2000. I can lament we became one all I want. But since I am a complementarian myself--albeit a soft complementarian but a complementarian nevertheless--I have no personal reservation with the statement. That doesn't mean every SB is necessarily a complementarian. What it does mean is any and all convention employees ought to be a gender complementarian since our statement of faith is gender complementarian.

As for "pastoring" being the same as "preaching" the answer is no. All pastors preach but not all preachers pastor (pastor in the specific sense of filling a NT ecclesial office). The NT specifically limits the role of pastor to males. Hence, all pastors are male. However, the NT does not seem to limit the preachers to males only. Thus, it follows that preachers per se do not necessarily have to be male. At least I do not find evidence in the NT all preachers necessarily must be male.

Know the view I just expounded does not settle well with my more hardened complementarian brothers--a hardened version I perceive is taking place within the CBMW at SBTS. A hardened version that fundamentally denies a woman, for example, a teaching role "over men" in institutions outside the local church and perhaps outside the pastoral office within the local church. That's one of the distinctions between hard complementarianism and soft complementarianism, the latter to which I myself identify.

Yes, a woman could be an "apostle" but not "pastor" if you use the former in a broad, general sense and the latter in a restricted, ecclesial sense of being a church officer. However, it's clear in the NT that neither "apostle" nor "pastor" used in a restricted, ecclesial sense of "church officer" is applicable to anyone other than males.

If that's being a fundie then fundie I shall remain.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

A Pastor/Elder is a position in the Church. It is an office that a man holds, because he is leading and teaching the Church. It is not just a description of ministering to others. It is an office of the Church. "

Are you sure about the word "office"? Was it not added by translators? Just as "symbol of" was added to 1 Corin 11 by translators. It is not in the Greek.

"Also, the verse says that a woman should not teach over a man...period. It's not talking about some local woman in the Church...it's saying that a woman should not have that authority over a man....to be the authority in the room about doctrine. And, the illustration of Adam and Eve is used in the following verses, which backs up the meaning of this verse."

Actually that is not what authenteo means. It is a poor translation. It is much worse than that and is something Chrysostom said husbands should not do to wives. If a clear word for authority was used in that passage I would have to agree with you. But it wasn't. That word is only used once in the NT. It is a mistake to ignore the pagan backdrop of the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus (a fertility cult) that taught that Eve was created first.

Autheteo has a sinister meaning. It has been translated as domineer. But again, it is something Chrysostom (who was no where near an egal) said husbands should not do to wives.

Now as to women teaching men, what about Mrs Criswell? Was it wrong for her to teach men (a large SS class of mixed gender) or not. If not, why?

Joel Gregory writes about it "Too Great a Temptation".

[Lydia]

"If that's being a fundie then fundie I shall remain."

Ha. Well there seem to be many interpretations of what is "Fundie". Actually all this talk of "offices" and specific job descriptions sounds more "High Church" to me. I am just glad you guys don't wear vestments!

Is there any NT character that describes himself or another actual person as a pastor of specific church? Peter, maybe? I just don't see it used in the way you all are describing.

[Scott Shaver]

Pete:

My intention was not to brush aside VolFan's views as "fundamentalist slobbering". I think my references to your exegesis and my admission of agreement on lack of NT support for office of female pastor, perhaps a teacher or two in the context of Corinth.

My questions/comments had more to do with the motivation behind the introduction of the subject of gender and ministry in the local church into a thread that began with a list of preachers highly thought of by another.

Volfan's leading comment was "I hope the women are not pastors". Additionally, I'm not arguing his characterization as an honorable Christian man and SBC pastor.

I'm arguing my perception of his throught process being that of a spiritual sexist... a long way I might add, Bill Mac, from your substitute designation "rogue misogynist".

I have no indication whatsoever that VolFan "hates" women.

Will argue, however, whether or not he has the right or the evidence to suggest that women leadership roles carried out in the context of local autonomous congregations "stunts" the spiritual growth or blessing of that fellowship...whether or not he has evidence to suggest that God's Holy Spirit will withdraw from that fellowship.

Bill Mac: if my questioning of VolFan's motives with his introduction of the female pastor issue seems "contentious or mean-spirit" to you...so be it.

No less no more mean spirited in my opinion than one's dropping the subject of women's roles in ministry into a totally unrelated discussion for the purpose of reminding us that some churches are more "doctrinally" correct than others.

No less no more mean-spirited than the labels and misguided characterizations thrown around daily by SBC baptist pastors toward others (clergy and laypersons) who may find themselves in disagreement with their views. SBC pastors and convention leaders are, in my opinions, the world leaders at creating labels and unnecessary divisions among church members and their leaders.

Finally, with no disrespect intended Bill Mac, this forum is or isn't the place to offer doctrinal analysis? You say on one hand it isn't, with the next line you invite me to offer one up.

I have no disagreement with either you or your friend VolFan in practicing your views on women in the church...in the context of your own local churches.

But to infer that disagreement with your views, no matter how contentiously stated" is proof of spiritual disobedience or stunted development in other local church settings where female teachers/preachers are utilized is definitely a point of contention with me.

That's the reason I would not subject my wife or three daughters to a fellowship that promotes a sexist spirituality in terms of the exercise of gifts.

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

I am uninterested in an exchange over gender complementarianism vs. egalitarianism (I'm quite sure you've noticed since I don't think I've posted over one or two posts about the issue--IF THAT,--since 2006). The fact is, it's a dead issue for SBs. It doesn't matter. We are officially a complementarian denomination. To argue about it does exactly jack squat toward solving anything. The most it would do, it seems to me, is a) prove complementarianism is universally accepted neither among SBs particularly nor evangelicals generally. But we already know that now; b) get riled up at each other over something we can neither change nor need to be riled up about.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ya'll play nice as I have to excuse myself for the time being...

[volfan007]

Lydia and Scott,

I think that you'll find that my position fits perfectly with not only the BIBLE, but also with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and with most Biblical scholars from history. It is not some way out, fringe, wacko, spiritual sexist viewpoint. It is what the Bible teaches. So, if yall don't like it, then you'll have to take that up with God. Because, I'm just trying to follow what His Word plainly and clearly teaches. And, I'm sorry if the Bible doesn't fit into today's, PC, feminist culture....but, it does say what it says...whether we want it to say that, or not....whether we like it, or not. Our response to the Word of God ought to be one of submission and obedience....even if the whole world doesn't go along with it.

Now, let me say this....I do think there's a little wiggle room for disagreement.....like with Bill Mac and Peter saying that they take a more soft complementarian view that what I would....Scripturally, they would have a leg to stand on...I still don't think they're right, but I can say that I respect their viewpoint. But, to try to twist the Scriptures, and distort the Bible to try to make it fit a feminist agenda is not right. It's wrong.

David

[Scott Shaver]

Here we go again David. I have no interest in a "feminist agenda" or any other spiritual conspiracy currently under the magnifying glass of SBC leaders.

Pete Lumpkins is correct: This is a dead issue in the SBC...an "officially complementarian denomination". Arguing about it does exactly jack squat.

Your position may "fit perfectly" with the BIBLE (caps yours)as your understand it's import and it may line up squarely with the BFM2000.

WHOOPEE.

From my perspective, your oft and continuing emphases (using last post as case in point)on gender roles and their utilization in Christian ministry are eschewed. Yet because of this, you also seem to imply that my handling of the Word of God is based on something less than spiritual obedience (i.e. "a feminist agenda" if not outright disobedience to God).

Fine, I reject both your interpretation as well any exhortation to course correction from you. Additionally, and I'm not alone in SBC life, the 2000BFM was rejected in toto by many of us JUST as soon as it was printed and reviewed.

Have never considered the BFM2000 as a test of fellowship. My opinion is that the document was poorly written for all the wrong reasons and it serves to deemphasize some axiomatic and historic baptist principles.

Would probably be best to conclude our interaction at this point.