How Baptists Got Into This Debate Over Women

How Baptists Got Into This Debate Over Women
By Audra E. Trull and Joe E. Trull

Note: This article is the introductory chapter of the book, Putting Women in Their Place: The Baptist Debate Over Female Equality to be released in June, 2003, by Smyth & Helwys. See the special offer of this book to our readers elsewhere in this issue. (START PAGE)

The summer of 2000 was a crucial turning point for both of us. After fifteen years of teaching Christian ethics and working with students at a Baptist seminary, we returned to Texas to begin a new phase of our lives, one we had not anticipated (more about that later).

One afternoon the telephone rang. On the line was the wife of a former seminary student. She had difficulty speaking as she asked, "What did I do wrong?"

At the seminary where we first met the couple, Penny was invited to join the first group of females to receive a new degree in women`s ministries. After the first year of study, an opportunity arose for Penny to serve for a week as a chaplain on a cruise line-"a time of ministry I shall never forget." Upon returning to the campus and sharing her experiences aboard the ship, her major professor (a female) called her aside privately.

Gently but firmly Penny was told never to serve as a "Cruise Chaplain" again! Why? No woman should occupy such a role-this was a position for a man. In addition, she had brought embarrassment to the seminary, for the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) meeting in their city that very month had approved a document forbidding female pastors.[2] She was further warned never to discuss this matter with anyone-professors, students, or other ministers.

As best we could over the phone, we gave Penny our comfort and counsel. We also directed her to an organization that provided support and information for women in ministry who faced opposition. In time she was able to write her own account of the incident, which was published by that organization under the title, "Woman Overboard."[3]

Penny`s repeated question remains with us to this day: "What did I do wrong?" The summer of 2000 was for her a crucial turning point.

That same summer was also a watershed moment for Southern Baptists. Like a perfect storm, the takeover of the SBC by ultra-conservatives had reached maximum intensity. By the year 2000, faculties and curriculums at theological schools were drastically changed. Mission agencies had revised their purposes, restructured their programs, and reassigned missionaries. Denominational agencies had reorganized under new mandates. Churches that assumed the squabble was a "preacher fight" suddenly realized the short and long-term effects of the takeover were impacting their congregations.

And along the path of the storm where the winds were strongest, scores of victims lay injured and bleeding-presidents and professors, mission board leaders and missionaries, agency heads and staff members, editors and secretaries, and many innocent bystanders like Penny.

The Takeover of the SBC

For the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., the summer of 2000 marked the culmination of twenty years of religious warfare between two groups. In the late 1970s a well-organized and well-financed cadre of ultra-conservatives launched a plan to gain control of the SBC. Moderate Baptists at first were reluctant to engage in this battle that resembled secular politics more than religion. When they did organize opposition, it was too late.

The strategy worked. By the 1990s the takeover was complete, as the organizers had put themselves into positions of leadership and control in the SBC. During the last decade of the twentieth century the leaders of this "conservative resurgence" (as they called it) relished their victory and immediately began the radical change of every institution and agency under their direction. [4]

In order to solidify their political successes, SBC leaders began rewriting the convention`s history from their perspective and rewriting the convention`s faith statement, The Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) to reflect their narrow fundamentalist-conservative beliefs.

Although this twenty-year struggle for control had many faces and numerous issues, in recent years one subject has become the focal point of debate-female equality. The two most significant revisions of the BF&M, one in 1998 and one in 2000, focused on the role of women in the home and in the church.

High profile personalities who were instrumental in the takeover engineered the controversial revisions in this SBC confession of faith, which had served the convention for 153 years. According to the former President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Russell H. Dilday, "This revised statement of faith . . . is being used as an official creed to enforce loyalty to the party in power. To refuse is to risk isolation or even expulsion from the denominational circle."[5]

One issue became the major test of orthodoxy-how a person or a congregation understood gender roles determined doctrinal soundness. To believe contrary to the BF&M 2000 statement was to deny the "inerrancy of the Bible," so the revisers claimed.

The Struggle for Female Equality

This battle over female equality did not begin with Baptists or even with Gloria Steinem. From the earliest chapters of Genesis, the devaluation of females has been a constant story in human history. Patriarchy, male domination, discrimination, and sexism have characterized almost every civilization.

The Greek myth of Amazon female warriors who ruled a society in Scythia is pure fantasy. Also idealistic was Plato`s just state composed of three social classes of equal people. The reality is that in every society, including Plato`s Greek state, women have been treated as second-class citizens, sometimes not much more than disposable property or worthless slaves.[6]

Only in the twentieth century has complete equality for women come close to realization. In the United States, women gained the right to vote in 1920. Today they are elected as mayors, governors, senators, and Supreme Court justices. Sixty years ago women were called into the workforce to aid their country during World War II. Today career women work in almost every vocation. Five decades ago, women in America had no guarantee of equal access to employment, housing, education, or credit. Today these rights are established by law.

In this past century a dramatic reversal has occurred in society`s attitude toward the abuse of females. In language and in law, in business and in family life, the mistreatment of women and sexual harassment have become major concerns. The plight of oppressed Afghan women has increased American awareness of this world problem.

In light of the twentieth century emancipation of women from domination, discrimination, and sexism, where does the church stand? Have not Christian beliefs and practices sometimes perpetuated female subordination? Has the church been more prone to uphold social customs and cultural traditions concerning women, than to declare and support God`s creative intent for female and male relationships?

The Response of Churches to Christian Feminist Movements

As we enter the third millenium, few topics have generated more heated discussion among both Protestants and Roman Catholics than gender roles and relationships. Feminist studies are common in theological schools, with no shortage of books and articles for the bibliography. Feminist theology is the topic of conferences, as well as a major "bone of contention" in many denominations.

No one denies the important role of women in the family and in the religious community. At the same time, traditional understandings of female roles, usually supported by biblical passages, have often placed women in a secondary position and deprived them of full involvement. Today, as never before, Christians are debating the proper place for women.

Evangelicals have carried on a friendly but serious dispute on this subject for more than 15 years. In 1990 the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) held their annual meeting on the New Orleans Seminary campus. Members of this group are known to be conservative scholars who hold a high view of Scripture. As we browsed in their display area, we discovered two groups promoting opposing views of male and female roles. Leaders in both circles were well-known theologians who based their views on the biblical revelation, and who (unlike many Baptists) were able to discuss their convictions with candor and mutual respect.

At one table marked Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) sat Dr. Catherine Kroeger, an expert in the ancient Greek language, classical Greek literature, and the Graeco-Roman culture of the first century. As a minister`s wife and foster mother of numerous children, she returned to the University of Minnesota late in life to earn her doctorate in the classics, convinced that many traditional understandings of gender were based on a faulty interpretation of the Bible in its first-century setting.

Through research, writing, and speaking, Dr. Kroeger has expanded our knowledge of the New Testament world and of biblical teachings concerning females (see Chapter Eight, "Paul and Women"). In 1987 she founded CBE, "an organization of Christians who believe the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all racial and ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups."[7]

At a second table at the ETS meeting was a representative of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), established for the purpose of "studying and setting forth biblical teachings on the relationship between men and women, especially in the home and church." The council was formed in 1987, in response to CBE, to clear up the "confusion about male and female roles in the Christian world today" and to affirm that "God made men and women equal in personhood and in value, but different in roles."[8]

At the first CBMW meeting, leaders in the group developed "The Danvers Statement," a declaration of the organization`s rationale, purposes, and affirmations, published in final form in November 1988.[9] In 1991 this traditionalist group published a 566-page book of twenty-six essays, significantly sub-titled A Response to Evangelical Feminism.[10]

As evangelicals debated the meaning of biblical teachings on gender issues,[11] the World Council of Churches called mainline denominations to a decade-long (1988-1998) focus on women. A central element in the feminist emphasis was the need for God, the community, and the church to be "re-imagined."

A RE-Imagining conference in the fall of 1993 brought together two thousand participants representing thirty-two denominations and twenty-seven countries. Most conferees represented the "gender feminist" perspective, rallying around key themes of women`s suffrage, male patriarchy, sexism by the traditional Christian church, and the need to reinterpret the Bible and its teachings.

Few would deny that feminism has played a major role in bringing full equality to twenty-first century women. Many Baptists, however, fail to distinguish between the founding mothers of feminism who wrote and worked for equality from the 1840s to 1940s, and the various contemporary expressions of the movement.

Today there is pluralism within feminism. In the 1960s and 1970s a radical feminist ethic emerged that taught that the only way to alleviate women`s plight was to achieve total autonomy-political, economic, sexual, and reproductive freedom, either through separation or seizing power from men.[12]

Many contemporary theologians have noted a split in the Christian feminist movement. The more radical "gender feminist" theologians emphasize the meaning of femaleness and the need to "re-imagine" traditional beliefs.[13] while "equity feminism" affirms orthodox Christianity is essentially correct but needs structural reform to achieve equality, civil rights, and to end discrimination.

This distinction is crucial for Baptists, who tend to lump all movements for female equality into the radical feminist category. Such stereotyping is at best naïve, and at worst intentionally deceptive and misleading.

The Baptist Debate Over Female Equality

How does this brief overview of the struggle for female equality during the last century, and particularly its impact on American religious life, relate to the present Baptist controversy? As we have noted, the powers-that-be who control today`s SBC have consolidated their dominance, using the 1998 Family Amendment and the 2000 BF&M statement and its pronouncements on women as a line of demarcation for passing the muster of "doctrinal accountability."[14] In a word, if you don`t put women in their assigned place (so say SBC leaders), we will put you in your place-outside the boundaries of orthodoxy and partnership.

In order to understand the present Baptist debate over female equality, we need to look briefly at the SBC record concerning female equality, and then we will examine closely three documents that ignited this present firestorm.

The debate over the place of women in Baptist life did not begin with the recent takeover movement. The issue was argued even before the beginning of the SBC in 1845. Four decades later, in 1885, two women from Arkansas tried to register as voting messengers to the SBC annual meeting. This attempt triggered a change in the wording of the SBC constitution regarding who could be seated as voting messengers, from "members" to "brethren." Not until 1918 was the change reversed, but this was still two years before women in the U.S. were given the right to vote.[15]

In an article in the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists published in 1958, Juliette Mather identified a major flaw in the SBC. Noting the financial support of missions stimulated by the Women`s Missionary Union and the large number of women leaders serving in local churches, she expressed disappointment that females had been largely overlooked as denominational leaders.[16]

Coinciding with the publication of The Feminine Mystic in 1963, the SBC elected its first woman officer, Marie Mathis of Texas, as second vice president. In the same year that the Equal Rights Amendment was passed (1972), Marie Mathis was nominated for president of the SBC-the only woman so nominated to date-but she was defeated.[17]

The 1984 Resolution. The 1984 convention meeting in Kansas City signaled a radical change in SBC attitudes toward women. The conservative leaders who began the takeover of the SBC in 1979 fueled the heated debate over female leadership by sponsoring a strongly worded resolution opposing ordination of women, which passed by a vote of 4793 to 3466.[18]

Resolution Three took the position that the Bible excludes women from pastoral leadership positions, concluding: "We encourage the service of women in all aspects of church life and work other than pastoral functions and leadership roles entailing ordination." Even more inflammatory was the written justification given for the action: this rule was to "preserve a submission that God requires because man was first in Creation, and woman was first in the Edenic Fall."[19]

Reaction was vigorous and varied. To proclaim male superiority based on the supposed chronology of Genesis was widely challenged as poor exegesis. To blame Eve for original sin in the Garden of Eden, which resulted in a penalty upon all females, exposed the superficial theology of the Resolutions Committee. But Pandora`s Box had been opened. A lively debate about the origin of sin ensued, often including Paul`s statement in Romans 5:12, "Sin came into the world through one man."

One year earlier, a group of SBC women had met in Louisville, Kentucky to begin the formation of a new organization: Southern Baptist Women in Ministry.[20] The 1984 resolution seemed to energize this new association (now renamed Baptist Women in Ministry), which immediately became a rallying force in opposition to the SBC attempt to limit female leadership. In 2002 over 1900 women serve as ordained Southern Baptist clergy, mostly as chaplains and staff members. Ironically, the majority of them received their ordination after 1984.[21]

Article XVIII: The 1998 Family Amendment. The 1984 Resolution was a harbinger of things to come. A key concern of the new leadership in the SBC was to establish a very definite role for women-to put them in their "assigned" place at home and in the church.

The new leaders of the SBC had always held a traditionalist view about women. But now, the gender issue seemed a perfect tool for ostracizing and eliminating their moderate Baptist opponents. Two SBC power brokers, Richard Land (Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission President and a member of both the 1998 and 2000 committees) and Paige Patterson (Southeastern Seminary President) had been Dean and President of the ultra conservative Criswell School of Theology. Patterson`s wife Dorothy was appointed to the 1998 committee. As newly elected SBC President, Patterson in turn appointed the 2000 committee, which included his brother-in-law, New Orleans Seminary President Chuck Kelley.

Recent SBC President Adrian Rogers (Chair of the 2000 Committee) and his wife Joyce, along with Paige and Dorothy Patterson, were original Board Members of the traditionalist Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Al Mohler, the young Southern Seminary president was also appointed to the 2000 BF&M Committee, following his wife Mary Mohler`s role as one of seven on the 1998 committee. Is it any surprise that this core group would draw some very specific boundary lines about women`s roles?

Article XVIII, an Amendment to the 1963 BF&M document, is titled "The Family" and consists of a four-paragraph (272 words) statement accompanied by a twenty-paragraph commentary/[22] On first reading, the brief statement (followed by a long list of supportive Scriptures) seems "thoroughly biblical" and innocuous to the casual reader. Paragraphs one and two affirm the family and the purposes of marriage. The last paragraph discusses the parent-child relationship.

The controversial third paragraph reads: "The husband and wife are of equal worth before God. Both bear God`s image but in differing ways. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead the family. A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being `in the image of God` as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and serve as his `helper` in managing their household and nurturing the next generation."

The underlined phrases need closer examination. It is obvious upon a second look that the committee of seven intended to define very specific male and female roles in the home. Traditionalists love to utter the oxymoronic idea that men and women are "equal . . . but in different ways." As gender issue scholar Rebecca Merrill Groothius has noted in an extensive article on this very subject, "The idea that women are equal in their being, yet unequal by virtue of their being, simply makes no sense."[23]

Note the subtle but definite assignment of "God-given" roles: men are responsible "to provide for, to protect, and to lead the family." In other words, the husband alone is to work outside the home and to be in charge as the guardian of the family. On the other hand, the wife`s "God-given" responsibility is to "submit graciously" to her husband`s leadership, to "respect" him and "serve as his `helper` in managing" the household and "nurturing" the children. In other words, the wife is ordained by God to remain in the home primarily to pay the bills, cook the meals, clean the house, and raise the kids.

Now, all of these family tasks are important. But the obvious problem with such boundaries is the assumption that the husband has little or no responsibility to nurture the children, manage the home, or help the wife with household tasks. Likewise, the subtle implication for the wife and mother is that she should not work outside the home or consider herself a provider, protector, or leader of the family. In this description of gender roles we have a solid basis for "Men Only" in the pastorate.

The greatest repercussions to the Family Amendment came from the phrase, "A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband" based primarily on a flawed exegesis of Ephesians 5:21-25 (See Chapter 10 for an extensive discussion of this passage). Though traditionalist`s claim to be "biblical," the word "graciously" is nowhere in the passage. Does this additional adverb mean that wives must not say, "O.K. I`ll do it," and frown, but rather they must smile and be sweet as they submit?

Dorothy Patterson was questioned by a reporter about female submission in the amendment she helped frame: "As a woman standing under the authority of Scripture, even when it comes to submitting to my husband when I know he`s wrong, I just have to do it and then he stands accountable at the judgment," she replied.[24]

Think about that statement. For a wife to claim that she is not accountable to God for a decision required by her husband, but only he is responsible, is close to theological heresy! This viewpoint contends either the husband knows best, or if not, he alone will answer to God.

This hierarchical view of marriage, made popular by Bill Gothard`s "Chain of Command" model, has authority flowing from God to Husband to Wife to Children. Many wives love this approach because it relieves them of responsibility. As the family leader, the husband is the one accountable to God for the family, while the wife is accountable to her husband. We have now in this theory an ironic reversal of the traditionalist interpretation of the Fall, where Eve and women are blamed for sin.

The 2000 BF&M. The leaders of the SBC were unrelenting in their quest for "doctrinal uniformity." They seemed determined to exclude all Southern Baptists who do not agree with them on certain key issues, a major one being the role of women.

Two years after the Family Amendment, a 15 member committee (appointed the previous summer by SBC President Paige Patterson) released proposed revisions to the 1963 BF&M. The SBC meeting in New Orleans in June approved 2000 BF&M.

Numerous changes troubled large numbers of Baptist leaders across the convention. In a compelling and well-documented analysis of the 2000 BF&M, the former president of the SBC`s largest seminary summarized eleven major concerns about the revision, including the new pronouncement that the Bible prohibits women from being pastors of local churches.[25]

Initial reactions to the 2000 BF&M revision focused on one sentence in Article VI. The Church: "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."[26] This latest revision of the Baptist confessional statements moves from putting women in their place in the home to assigning females their place in the church.

Criticism of this position was immediate, centering on two key questions: biblical interpretation and local church autonomy. Strong reactions appeared in speeches, sermons, articles, editorials, and state convention resolutions. Robert Parham, director of the Baptist Center for Ethics in Nashville, said the new document "pulls up a drawbridge into the 21st century and padlocks Southern Baptists into a 19th century cultural castle." Daniel Vestal, coordinator of the moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship told the New York Times the proposed revision "is based on a bad interpretation of Scripture, an insensitivity to the Holy Spirit and an unwillingness to see what God is doing in the world today."[27]

Committee members defended their prohibition of women as pastors. Al Mohler declared the statement is "not culturally driven" but "a matter of biblical conviction." James Merritt, who ran unopposed as SBC President in 2000, asserted the practice of ordaining women is "unbiblical." Paige Patterson added, "Our positions are not going to be dictated by culture. They`re going to be dictated by Scripture."[28]

It is most interesting that committee members brought up the issue of culture-actually, that issue is one of the most serious weaknesses of the SBC framer`s position on female roles. Historically, Southern Baptists often have been guilty of reflecting culture, more than challenging it. On the issue of race, for over a century Southern Baptists used the Bible to defend slavery and the practice of keeping African-Americans in their place. Both of us were seminary students in the 1960s, and we well remember how Scripture was misused to prove racial inequality and support racial discrimination.

These same arguments, and often the same Scriptures, are now used to support female inequality and discrimination. To their credit, most of the SBC leaders have finally got it right on the race question, but they fail to see the connection with female equality. In supporting their position, the defenders of the traditional view of women`s roles play "Bible Poker," flinging down on the table proof-text Scriptures. Traditionalists fear to admit that the Bible must be interpreted in the cultural context in which the Word of God was first delivered, which is a basic hermeneutical principle.[29]

As we examine carefully these recent SBC pronouncements about women, we are forced to conclude that all three are flawed biblically, theologically, and procedurally.

Biblically, the framers of these documents have used the Bible selectively; as well as used a method of interpretation that every first-year seminary student is warned to avoid. To quote proof-texts out of context, to add non-biblical words like "graciously," and to attach questionable commentary raises basic hermeneutical suspicions.

Theologically, the group proposes a false hierarchical view of marriage and male authority based on the patriarchal idea that men answer to God and women answer to men.

The procedural flaws may not be as obvious. To understand who was chosen to serve on these key committees and how they functioned, especially in comparison to similar committees in the past, is a commentary on power politics in religion.

In 1963 there were twenty-four representative persons on the BF&M committee, one from each state convention, who sought feedback and information from a wide spectrum of resources. Compare this to the seven members in 1998 (one SBC executive, two state convention executives, two wives of seminary presidents, and two pastors) and the thirteen men and two women appointed to the 2000 BF&M committee. All were known for their extreme right position on most issues, and they deliberately worked in secret until just before the convention.

Another procedural concern has emerged in relation to the application of this document. The preamble to 2000 BF&M clearly states that "we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility" and that the statements "are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life."[30] Yet, despite the traditional Baptist aversion to creeds at every level-national, state, associational, and church-Baptists are now being required to endorse this statement or face ostracism, isolation, or downright expulsion! Local church autonomy and the priesthood of every believer, long-cherished doctrines among Baptists, are now being threatened by this push for SBC-style uniformity, which resembles a hierarchical form of church government that Baptists in America have opposed since the days of Roger Williams, John Leland, and Isaac Backus.

Even though BF&M 2000 only forbids women to serve as pastors, the practical fallout has been disastrous. SBC seminaries, mission agencies, state offices, and churches have regressed in their recognition and use of women.

In the seminary where I taught (along with the other SBC seminaries), women can be considered to teach only "safe subjects" such as music, children and youth work, social work, and religious education. At the Baptist school from which I graduated in 1957, a wonderful female Old Testament professor taught some of our most admired ultra-conservative pastors. No one complained. Today that same school will not consider any woman to teach as a Bible professor.

Just before this chapter was sent to the publisher, I received an email from my former Teaching Assistant/Grader, who this year received her Ph.D. in New Testament. Although she and one other were the first women to receive a doctorate in New Testament from the seminary in New Orleans, that fact was not announced. To add insult to injury, both of them were presented differently than were the male graduates, treated in a way that was condescending and demeaning at the graduation ceremonies.[31]

In many SBC churches women cannot teach men or boys, cannot chair a mixed-gender committee, cannot stand behind the pulpit, cannot lead music-where will this craziness end! This is the fallout from these formal declarations about the place of women in our homes and churches.

As we implied at the beginning, this controversy has a personal side for us. In 1998 as we were preparing for our second sabbatical study, the new seminary president startled Joe with the words, "Have you thought about early retirement?" After a year of sabbatical study our plan was to return to teach for another five to ten years. "You are not being forced to retire," said the President, "but I urge you to consider this window of opportunity."

Since 1985, Joe had been the only teacher of Christian ethics at the New Orleans seminary. In many ways he had brought renown to the school, including the publishing of two textbooks widely used. He could not understand the offer until he was told by a reliable source, "Your position on women as outlined in your new textbook could cause problems with our Trustees. Our new president will not be able to protect you."

A few months later, the SBC approved the 1998 Family Amendment, which the President`s sister helped to frame. And the president himself would soon be on the 2000 committee, even though he later told Joe that he was no theologian and asked his brother-in-law not to appoint him.

If we returned to the seminary, our days were numbered. An agreement was reached whereby we did not return.

Putting women in their place is a deep conviction we both treasure, as do many others who, like us, consider integrity more valuable than job security. A new advertising logo at CBE says it best: "Put Women in Their Place-Beside Men!"

Endnotes

[1]Although there are numerous types of Baptists all holding various views about women, the editors have chosen to use "Baptists" and "Southern Baptists" as synonymous terms, as the debate over female equality has become a major divisive issue in the largest Protestant denomination in America.

[2] The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 document, written by a committee of which the professor`s husband, the president of the seminary, was a member.

[3] See "Woman Overboard" by Penny Glaesman in Mutuality (Fall, 2001, 16), published by Christians for Biblical Equality, 122 West Franklin Av., Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55404.

[4] Readers who wish to understand the SBC controversy should read: Grady C. Cothan, What Happened to the Southern Baptist Convention (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1993) or Fisher Humphrey, The Way We Were (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. For the ultra-conservative viewpoint, see Paul Pressler, A Hill On Which To Die: One Southern Baptist`s Journey (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999).

[5] Russell H. Dilday, "An Analysis of The Baptist Faith and Message 2000," Christian Ethics Today 40 (June, 2002): 4. This article may be accessed from www.ChristianEthicsToday.com

[6] For a full discussion of the issue of Human Equality and Gender, see Joe E. Trull, Walking in the Way: An Introduction to Christian Ethics (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 189-211.

[7] A full statement of the organizations beliefs and mission, as well as the endorsement of over 100 leading evangelicals, may be found at their website: cbeinternational.org or by writing to them at 122 W. Franklin Ave., Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55404.

[8] Advertisement in Christianity Today, 13 January 1989, 40-41, whose address is P.O. Box 1173, Wheaton, IL 60187.

[9] Ibid.

[10] John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991). Only 3 of the 26 chapters, 25 of the 566 pages, are written by women.

[11]See Agnieszka Tennant, "Nuptial Agreements," Christianity Today, 11 March 2002, 58-65, for a good summary of the present debate between evangelicals on the issue of gender roles.

[12] Margaret A. Farley, "Feminist Ethics," The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. James F. Childress (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986), 199-200.

[13] See Elizabeth Achtemeier`s "Why God Is Not Mother," Christianity Today, 16 August 1993, 16-23.

[14] Tony W. Cartledge, "Positive Signs or Posturing" in the Biblical Recorder, 12 July 2002.

[15] Juliette Mather, "Women, Convention Privileges of," Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1958), 2:1543.

[16] Ibid., 1544.

[17] Catherine Allen, "Women`s Movements and Southern Baptists", Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists (1984), 4:2561.

[18] Cothan, 145.

[19] See Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention 1984.

[20] Betty McGary Pearce, "A History of Women in Ministry, SBC," Folio, Summer 1985, 9-10.

[21] Dr. Sarah Frances Anders, who has been keeping data on the number of ordained SBC women since the ordination of Addie Davis in 1964, confirms 1788 in 2002, but she estimates the number to be over 1900 including: 378 Chaplains; 224 Pastors, Associate, and Co-Pastors; 163 Staff Members; 28 Professors; 25 Other Denominations; 22 Retired; 9 Missionaries; 6 Students; 3 Deceased; and 951 Other (Secular, Wives, etc.). BWIM Board Members believe the number is over 2000.

[22] The full text may be found in the Baptist Message, 25 June 1998, 6-7, or in Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention 1998.

[23] Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, "Logical and Theological Problems with Gender Hierarchy" in Pricilla Papers, Spring 2000, 3-5. Also worth reading are her two classic books: Women Caught in the Conflict: The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994) and Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Baker Book House, 1997).

[24] "Patterson`s Election Seals Conservative Control," Christianity Today, 13 July 1998, 21.

[25] Dilday, 4-11.

[26] The Baptist Faith and Message, 13,published by LifeWay Christian Resources of the SBC, Nashville, TN.

[27] Bob Allen, "Reaction to proposed statement focuses on women`s ordination," ABP News, May 23, 2000, Volume: 00-45.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Conservative scholars Gordon Fee and Douglass Stuart explain this as "The Problem of Cultural Relativity" [How To Read the Bible For All Its Worth, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, 65-71].

[30] The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, 5.

[31] In her words, after the hooding of the graduate, "While the person walks down the steps he is introduced as Dr. So and So who currently is [place of service]. I said `he` on purpose because this was only done for the men. It was a perfect way once again to humiliate us women. You see women cannot teach in biblical studies or theology. In fact, women cannot even teach Greek. . . . When I was asked what I was currently doing, I said I was nine months pregnant and about to go into labor. So while the men walked down and were presented as Drs., neither woman was presented as Dr." For years this talented couple has been committed to missionary service; presently they are seeking appointment by American Baptists because of SBC restrictions on women.

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us