Cedarville University, Paige Patterson, Al Mohler: Tough Times for Female Christian Professors

“I lack the fervency, vitality, life, in prayer which I long for. I know that many consider it fanaticism when they hear anything which does not conform to the conventional, sleep-inducing eulogies so often rising from Laodicean lips; but I know too that these same people can acquiescently tolerate sin in their lives and in the church without so much as tilting one hair of their eyebrows.”-Jim Eliot link


Cedarville-University-DMC-596x237Cedarville University

The Wartburg Watch community extends its sympathies to female professors who have been mistreated, solely due to their gender, at Christian colleges, universities and seminaries.

Today I tweeted about Al Mohler's response to a Religion News Service article called The evangelical unease over contraception link. His response, Al Mohler responds: The evangelical unease over contraception link gave me pause and I realized that it directly relates to a growing controversy at Cedarville University. Here is a quote from that post.

…The references he cites all predate the current debate over the contraception mandate, and most long predate the election of President Obama. This is not a recent development, but a long-term evangelical reconsideration of birth control and the place of contraception within larger understandings of marriage, the family and human sexuality.

 …the shift of the evangelical conscience on birth control — and the rise of a new urgency to recover a more biblical understanding of sex, gender roles, marriage and reproduction — represents a far more formidable challenge to modernity 

Why the focus on limiting contraception as opposed to limiting abortion?

It is important to note that this is not a discussion about abortifacients. This is about contraceptives. This is not about adoption of the many unwanted children in the world. It is about the sin of contraception. And this sin, according to Mohler is linked to gender roles and reproduction. Oddly  Al Mohler and Paige Patterson (who will soon enter this discussion), who are hoping that Christians will forgo contraception, have had only two children each. They did not adopt children in order to fulfill some sort of mandate about huge families so one wonders if there is a different agenda here.

Whenever the Duggar family comes up in discussion forums, the inevitable question is raised. Why don't the Duggars adopt? A potential for huge families is one of the issues surrounding those who forgo contraception.  At least one of Duggar's pregnancies resulted in a prolonged hospitalization. She has had 19 children which, barring miscarriages, means that she has been pregnant for 190 months (roughly 17 years). Women who experience multiple pregnancies, along with the added pressure to homeschool, are usually unable to enter the work force and must rely on their husbands to provide. In other words, women will stay at home and leave the jobs to the men. Could the focus on contraception, as part of the overall push for defining of gender roles, actually be helpful in getting women out of the workforce and out of positions of authority? It sure seem to us that something is afoot in some Christian universities and seminaries.

Cedarville University is experiencing an exodus of female faculty

TWW has been contacted on several occasions over the years by anonymous female employees of Cedarville. Why anonymous? We shall get there.

Wikipedia link:

Cedarville College was chartered in 1887 by the New Light Reformed Presbyterian Church; at the time, the surrounding township was largely Presbyterian. 

In 1953, the Baptist Bible Institute of Cleveland relocated and transitioned into management of Cedarville College through a merger arrangement with the college's Presbyterian board of trustees, who each resigned in turn.[3] The Baptists were affiliated with the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, a fundamentalist group which later dissociated itself from the college.[4]  

In an article, Leadership changes at Cedarville University point to conservative direction, at Religion News Services link we see some worrisome developments. Before I begin, I find it interesting that word "conservative" in the title is directly linked to women faculty who are leaving the university. Once again, words are being redefined. Conservative, which once meant believing in certain fundamentals of the faith: Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc., no longer means that. Conservative, if one reads the article, now means believing in a literal 6 day creation and a limited role of women in academia. The following quotes are from that article unless noted.

The university has been taken over by Southern Baptists.

A private religious university in Ohio is undergoing a faculty shakeup, including an exodus of women faculty, after having been taken over by Southern Baptists.

Really conservative Southern Baptists. Paige Patterson and other Southern Baptists who have a history of problems with women teaching men.

Then in June, the school hired Thomas White, formerly vice president for student services and communications at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, 

The 25-member board now includes only one woman. Added to the board is Southwestern President Paige Patterson, a staunch biblical literalist and one of the leaders of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Suddenly, women start resigning and can't say anything because of confidentiality agreements.

I do not blame these women for signing these agreements. In the business world, severance payments are often tied to confidentiality. In other words, they may need that income to support their families.

The recent departures include prominent women such as Bible professor Joy Fagan, associate vice president of student life Kirsten Gibbs and Briana DuPree, resident director and coordinator of diversity student programs.

Fagan, who signed a confidentiality statement, said she’s limited in what she can say.

“I do not feel I am a good fit for the university going forward,” she said, declining to elaborate. Fagan is the only woman listed on Cedarville’s Bible department website

The university says that they have plenty of women in each department.

White said nothing has changed in the school’s official policy and Cedarville has women in every department.

“Our position is that we don’t train women to be in the office of pastor, elder or bishop,” White said.

But observers believe the university is undergoing a seismic shift in theological views on the role of women.

Under Brown, some say, it fit under a wide evangelical umbrella that engages the broader culture in ways similar to institutions such as Wheaton College (Illinois) or Taylor University (Indiana). Now, one alumnus said, Cedarville might be viewed as more akin to Moody Bible Institute in Chicago — a school that does not allow women to teach men theology.

The school now integrates "Scripture and discipline." 

Reading between the lines, one can imagine that this means a dim view on the role of women in academia.

The difference between the two administrations, said David Dockery, president of Union University in Tennessee, lies in the presidents’ theological perspectives. Brown would have put a greater emphasis on general revelation, finding truth outside of the Scriptures in God’s creation, in the natural world, Dockery said.

“Dr. White’s emphasis on the truthfulness and the sufficiency of the Bible causes people to ask a different kind of question,” he said. “It’s not so much the integration of faith and learning; It’s the integration of Scripture and discipline.”

There is an ongoing federal investigation into sexual discrimination and sexual harassment on campus.

TWW has been in touch with folks who know about this situation. Although we are not at liberty to state what we have been told, we can categorically say that this investigation is far more than "they hate women." It involves some serious complaints. We hope to discuss this in the near future.

In September the university said it is under review by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in response to a complaint claiming the university is in violation of Title IX — a federal gender equity law that requires colleges to adjudicate sexual harassment and violence on campus.

The office is still investigating whether campus officials resolved a complaint alleging sex discrimination.

It appears that being anything but Republican as a professor could result in being fired.

Worse yet, it could close down an entire department!

A philosophy faculty member caused a stir last fall when writing an op-ed for the campus newspaper on “Why I am Not Voting for Romney.” The philosophy department staff has since been cut back. The philosophy and physics majors have been eliminated.

So, are women really being eliminated from certain positions in the university?

Here is a comment under this post which adds more charges to consider.

Comment by Anon

Dr. White’s wife teaches classes that are only open to women. Not much of a counterexample.

Also, I’m also a Cedarville student, and I think your remark that it’s not a big deal outside of people “looking for controversy” is both incorrect and offensive. Over the past year, the new regime has caused the departure of a third of the trustees, over a dozen Bible faculty, the president, several vice presidents, and over thirty faculty and staff. Many of these individuals were forced to leave 

Women teaching the Bible to men is "unbiblical" in the university setting as well?

I find this unsettling.  Many of the complementarians claim that the only place a woman cannot teach men is within a local church. Don't believe them. It appears that they will extend this teaching far beyond the local church and seminaries and into academia. Who knows how much further this will extend?

In an article, Fagan Leaving Cedarville After This Semester  link, note what Professor Joy Fagan has to say about this.

Bible professor Joy Fagan is resigning from Cedarville after two decades of service to the university. Her last day is Dec. 20.(2013)

“The why is tricky,” she said. “Every administration has the right to take the university in a particular direction, and every faculty and staff member has the responsibility to determine if they are a good fit for that direction.”

Fagan said she believes she is no longer a good fit for the university, particularly because of her role as a woman teaching in the Bible department.

Paige Patterson being appointed to the trustees is proof positive that women will not be welcome in the academic environment unless they teach homemaking.

1. Dr Dorothy Patterson, Paige's wife, founded and heads up the homemaking school at SWBTS link. Needless to say, they do not offer a "heavy chores" degree for men.

Southwestern Baptist, one of the nation's largest Southern Baptist seminaries, is introducing a new academic program in homemaking as part of an effort to establish what its president calls biblical family and gender roles.

It will offer a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration in homemaking. The program is only open to women.

Coursework will include seven hours of nutrition and meal preparation, seven hours of textile design and "clothing construction," three hours of general homemaking, three hours on "the value of a child," and three hours on the "biblical model for the home and family."

Seminary officials say the main focus of the courses is on hospitality in the home — teaching women interior design as well as how to sew and cook. Women also study children's spiritual, physical and emotional development.

2. In a well known incident, Dr Paige Patterson despicably treated SWBTS professor, Sheri Klouda.

Here is an excerpt In an article by Wade Burleson. Sheri Klouda: Gender Discrimination, Federal Law and the Law of Christ in the SBC and SWBTS link.  

A Sad Story 

Paige Patterson was a hired as President of Southwestern Theological Seminary on June 24, 2003, a little over a year after trustees had hired Klouda. The trustees voted voted unanimously to hire Dr. Patterson just as they had Dr. Klouda a year earlier.

Some of the faculty at Southwestern were concerned about the hiring of Paige Patterson. Paige was asked during a June 24, 2003 press conference following his appointment if he would hire women in the school of theology. He responded that “Dorothy serves on the theology faculty at Southeastern”, and that “ provides somewhat of an answer.” Then he added, “there are ample numbers of men who are well-qualified for those positions.” Patterson said he planned to build the faculty with “God-called men.” 

Patterson’s philosophical perspective on the roles of women in theological education prevented him from feeling comfortable about women teaching biblical studies or theology to men. In September of 2003, two months after his appointment as President of Southwestern and a one month before his official inauguration,Paige met privately with all staff and faculty . David Allen, the 2003 chairman of the board of trustees responsible for hiring Dr. Patterson, and who himself would be hired by Patterson in 2004 to serve as dean for the SWBTS School of Theology, said of that private meeting with faculty and staff, "While some speculate about Patterson's compatibility with our faculty, I have high hopes that our excellent faculty will work well with Dr. Patterson." 

At that closed door meeting in September 2003, Paige gave personal assurances to faculty that their jobs were safe, regardless of gender. Sheri acknowledges her concern at the time, but after the faculty meeting, and the personal assurance by Dr. Patterson that her job was secure, she relaxed and continued in her commitment to invest her life and service in the school she loved. A few days after Patterson's inauguration,four professors resigned unexpectedly, including Dr. Bruce Corley, however, Klouda placed her focus on serving her school and being loyal to President Patterson and the constituency that hired her. 

Sheri is the primary provider for her family due to several illnesses which have plagued her husband over the years. In July of 2003 William and Sheri purchased a home in Arlington, in order to be closer to the seminary so that she could spend more time at the school and with her family than on the highway commuting. 

A little over a year after Sheri received the personal assurance that her job was secure, she was called to attend a meeting in June, 2004, where she was informed that she would not be granted tenure because 'she was a woman.' Ironically, Dorothy Patterson was serving as Professor of Theology in Women's Studies, but unlike Sheri, Dorothy 'only taught women’. Though it was often said by Paige and Dorothy that Dorothy worked ‘officially’ under the auspices of the School of Education at Southwestern, she was listed on the school’s web site as teaching in the School of Theology. As of January 2007, Dorothy Patterson’s name continues to be listed on Southwestern’s official web site as teaching in the School of Theology.

In that June, 2004, precisely a year after Patterson had been appointed President of the school, Sheri was told that it was ‘the President’ who would never recommend her for tenure. Why? It had nothing to do with her professional performance or collegiality, but simply her gender. She would not be given tenure by the President, because she was the only female teaching biblical studies in the school of theology, and that was not the proper place for a woman. There were many qualified men that could fill that position and it was the President's desire to replace her. Southwestern would give her two to three years to find another position at a reputable school, but she was to do her best to find another position as quickly as possible.

Sheri was stunned. In her mind she had the job of her dreams. While the issues surrounding tenure do not guarantee that a professor will retain his or her position at an institution, she saw herself as working towards tenure at Southwestern. She had invested her life, her family, and all her energy to be close to the school she loved. There was not one thing she had done to discredit her school. Rather, she was well liked by the students, had been loyal to administration and faculty, and had done her best to bring excellence to the school of theology in evangelical circles. 

She was being forced out because she was a woman. 

Al Mohler's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary also has some concerning statistics on the presence of women on faculty link

 The tenure status for instructors and researchers at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary says it all.

95% men; 5% women

Summing it all up:

The authoritarian, gender driven crowd appear to making a full court press to get women out of Christian academia. However, it was sure nice  for them to be able to limit the size of their families so their wives could lead conferences and seminary programs designed to make sure women have lots of children and stay at home.

Please understand, Deb and I did stay home with our children. We have no problems with stay at home moms and large families so long as it is a choice as opposed to a mandate. This is turning into the Louisville Creed-Repeat after me." I believe that women are to get pregnant, have lots of babies and stay out of academia-Amen!"

The future, within certain segments of Christendom, looks rather bleak for those of the female gender who wish to participate fully in the life of Christian academia and the church. We express our sorrow to these women who have given years of service to universities and students, only to be encouraged to leave because they had the misfortune, in the eyes of some men, to be born female.

Lydia's Corner: Isaiah 51:1-53:12 Ephesians 5:1-33 Psalm 69:19-36 Proverbs 24:7

Comments

Cedarville University, Paige Patterson, Al Mohler: Tough Times for Female Christian Professors — 425 Comments

  1. @ Ken:

    Thanks for your response! Based on your response, it seems to me you believe (& correct me if I’m wrong) the gender restrictive interpretation & foundation for restricting female speech in church is this:

    Female speech is more disorderly (disruptive?) than males, but only in a church setting. This disorderly female conduct includes singing as well as speech, but again only in a church setting. You consider singing hymns part of teaching.

    I’m interested to know your views on the following:
    Does the church setting include the nursery or Sunday school? Teaching does occur there. Male nursery/Sunday school teachers only? Only male children can speak/ask questions? Or maybe you reject nursery/Sunday school altogether?

    What if a male asks a female where the men’s room is? Does the female remain silent & not teach the male where the men’s room is?

    What about praying out loud in church? What about reading the Bible out loud in church? What about females doing both (praying/reading Bible) silently in church?

    When you refer to church, do you mean the officially designated building?

    Is your reference the Biblical Manhood & Womanhood 576 page book by Piper & Grudem? If not, how do you decide / define teaching?

    In all other settings (except church building) with all types of actions (speech/singing/instrument playing/saving a life/ etc.), the disorderly (disruptive?) conduct problem with females is no worse than males?

    Sorry, I had a lot of questions. Interested in your view.

  2. elastigirl wrote:

    Joe, I’m not up to speed on all your comments (hence your perspective), but sounds like you believe that it is best and right for christians to marry early — that God wants people to marry early.

    Why do you believe this? What is godly about early marriage?

    I never stated my beliefs or perspectives. There are ample secular statistics available regarding marriage age, marriage rate and divorce rate. I was wondering whether the same statistics apply to graduates of Christian colleges. Since churches “push” marriage (and don’t think very highly of singles), I would assume that the marriage age would be lower and marriage rate higher for Christians that graduate from Christian colleges. Regarding divorce, I would hope that it would be at a much lower rate because the grounds for divorce should be “biblically based” rather than the secular “no fault based” which I understand means that one party can end a marriage without having any reason other than they want out. But if the statistics are the same, then I would conclude that the church’s teachings about marriage and divorce are either ineffective or are falling on deaf ears.

  3. So it’s okay for a woman to teach a man theology as long as she isn’t tenured. Got it. *eyeroll*

  4. @ Nancy:

    Yes, the federal government should be able to prohibit Cedarville from gender discrimination. The university accepts federal money.

    Bob Jones University lost their tax-exempt status because they prohibited interracial dating.

  5. @ Daisy:

    Now, a degree in child development and parenting would definitely be useful. But they should be open to men, too.

  6. @ Victorious:
    When Paul spoke in Hebrew to the unruly crowd in Acts 22, the same Greek word is used, and this gives a feeling for the word, a quiet demeanor resulting in the ‘silence’ of 1 Tim.

    Acts 22 : 2 And when they heard that he addressed them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet.

    I haven’t spent much time on this for years. I think it true to say most if not all churches in my locality don’t care what it says, they simply have no intention of obeying it. This attitude is by far a greater problem than the precise interpretation and application of what the apostles say on the matter, and it carries over into other areas as well.

  7. @ A Mom:
    It’s nothing to do with disorderly speech, it is refraining from being teachers over men in the way a teaching elder or pastor would be, in a church meeeting. This is what is out of order, insubordinate, not in rank. God has given women the authority to pray and prophesy (note the covering of 1 Cor 11 is a sign of authority, not submission!), but not teach. This I think you would agree makes most of your remaining questions redundant.

    I have read some of the Council for Biblical Manhood etc stuff, but it is not my bible! Also looked at the other side of the question too. I learned most of what I know on this in the UK, where there is no patriarch movement, from teachers who were very much into every member ministry. Needless to say it can be a hot topic in the UK, but it doesn’t seem to raise the ire or generate the extremes over here that it does on your side of the pond.

  8. Ken wrote:

    I think it true to say most if not all churches in my locality don’t care what it says, they simply have no intention of obeying it. This attitude is by far a greater problem than the precise interpretation and application of what the apostles say on the matter, and it carries over into other areas as well.

    I am sorry to hear that perhaps all of the churches in your area intentionally disobey Scripture. How awful!

    However, the issue at hand here is different. We are dealing with folks who believe in Scripture but do not interpret the verses in the same way as you do. In other words, most people here deeply care about the Bible and the church, myself included.

  9. I actually brought up the above linked article both for its own merit AND for a certain comment underneath that I think illustrates Ken’s debating flaws perfectly.

    Link to the comment:
    http://onacracker.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/why-denny-burk-is-wrong-about-egalitarian-exegesis-and-the-functional-authority-of-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-13

    Quoting Kristen’s comment: “What really gets me is the way Burk (like most complementarians I encounter) feels the need to couch his opponent’s arguments as “unblushing” and “stark,” indicating that the opposing view isn’t just disagreement or even error, but moral failing. The complementarian strategy is usually to assume there is only one possible way to understand Scripture (theirs) unless one is actually being morally dishonest– and then to use term of righteous shock at the immorality of those who read the same Scriptures they do, but understand them differently. Needless to say, this puts the argument on a false footing from the start. The reader is encouraged not to simply examine each argument on its own merit, but to side with the complementarians because to do otherwise is intellectual sin.”

    And I think this assumption that others “simply have no intention of obeying [scripture]” is just such a “false footing”. It is one that Ken believes. But in arguing from this false footing it makes it not a true debate or examining of evidence. It makes it a preaching of the one who is (or assumes himself to be) righteous railing at those who are (he assumes to be) unrighteous. It is not a debate at all. And as long as Ken preaches rather than debates, he will not improve his debating and convincing skills.

    Hey, I’m just trying to help you out, Ken.
    I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.

  10. Mara, I see only 4 comments at the link you provided though your link indicates there should be 13. I’m confused.

  11. @ Victorious:
    I only ever saw 4 comments. I have no idea why the link calls it comment 13.
    Kristen’s is the first of the four. I cut off the first sentence from her comment where she praises the post. Hope that didn’t confuse anybody.

  12. Ken wrote:

    @ A Mom:
    It’s nothing to do with disorderly speech, it is refraining from being teachers over men in the way a teaching elder or pastor would be, in a church meeeting. This is what is out of order, insubordinate, not in rank. God has given women the authority to pray and prophesy (note the covering of 1 Cor 11 is a sign of authority, not submission!), but not teach. This I think you would agree makes most of your remaining questions redundant.
    I have read some of the Council for Biblical Manhood etc stuff, but it is not my bible! Also looked at the other side of the question too. I learned most of what I know on this in the UK, where there is no patriarch movement, from teachers who were very much into every member ministry. Needless to say it can be a hot topic in the UK, but it doesn’t seem to raise the ire or generate the extremes over here that it does on your side of the pond.

    The first paragraph explains much to me about your thinking about leadership.

    From what I gather from scripture, no male or female believer is to have ‘authority over’ any other believer in the body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not about ranks or possibly being insubordinate. It is not to be likened to the military.

  13. @ Bridget: indeed. The whole chain of command bit is from Bill Gothard and his followers. Looks like Ken has imbibed from that (imo, tainted) well.

  14. @ Joe:

    You had said, “I would like to believe that>/b> early marriages are more common, the marriage rate higher and the divorce rate much lower for graduates of Christian colleges”.

    It sounded like you felt that early marriage and marriage in general were desirable and right and to be preferred, therefore more or less in accordance with your beliefs. Perhaps I misunderstood.

  15. @ Ken:

    Thanks for clarifying. Well, okay. Your interpretation of the NT indicates females are out of rank if they are leading or teaching men. But only in church. And no female singing in church in the presence of males since that is teaching men.

    Humor me, Ken. Answer the remaining questions from my last comment & you have the right to call me dense if you’d like. I modified the last question in light of your response.

    Does the church setting include the nursery or Sunday school? Teaching does occur there. Male nursery/Sunday school teachers only? Only male children can speak/ask questions? Or maybe you reject nursery/Sunday school altogether?

    What if a male asks a female where the men’s room is? Does the female remain silent & not teach the male where the men’s room is?

    In all other settings except for church, with all types of actions (leading/singing/instrument playing/saving a life/ etc.), females are not outranking men?

  16. Not ‘intentionally disobeying scripture’ but indifferent to it. Following the secular culture around. In the free evangelical Willow Creek church we drifted out of, the issue wasn’t women’s ministry but some New Age occultism that crept in (possibly inner healing, I can’t remember), and when my wife challenged it on the basis that it wasn’t in the bible was basically told to keep quiet, don’t disturb the relationships in the group. I couldn’t get her to go after that, she rightly said what’s the point of studying a book if we only then ignore it. That, I would have thought you have guessed, is the real issue.

    Believe me we have beaten ourselves up for years over whether we have an attitude problem or just what it is that makes us unable to fit in. We’ve even thought of going back to end our isolation, there are some superb people there, but I just can’t believe we will ever fit in – and we are not the only ones. There is something about it, and I can’t put my finger on it, that makes this seem non-Christianity to me.

    You asked my what I meant about adorning the doctrine of Christ ealier. I didn’t mean to ignore you! I think some patriarchal attitudes towards women can make Christianity decidedly unattractive, and I get egalitarians not liking that. Egalitarians, in turn, can reflect an equal and opposite attitude problem though. In particular the attitude of egalitarian women to complementarian women. Daniel Wallace has if I recall some experience and comment on this, but I have a feeling you intend to address it soon by something that appeared and disappeared.

  17. Mara wrote:

    discusses Ken’s error of deciding that his way is the right way and that everybody that doesn’t agree with him, well, “simply have no intention of obeying [scripture]”

    See my reply above to Dee. I was talking about local churches.

    “I think it true to say most if not all churches in my locality don’t care what it says, they simply have no intention of obeying it. This attitude is by far a greater problem than the precise interpretation and application of what the apostles say on the matter, and it carries over into other areas as well”

    Obviously I think my understanding is correct, or I wouldn’t say it. But what I actually said is not relevant to whether or not others who are not my local churches think differently.

  18. You will have to forgive wondering if you were taking the micky in your questions! I quite deliberately said women are not to ‘be teachers’ over men ‘in church’ in my understanding. This has nothing to do with children (where did Timothy get his knowledge of the bible from?) or asking for directions, which is hardly teaching doctrine. Your final question is likewise dealing with being outside of the gathered church.

    Bridget – thanks for your reply above, but I wasn’t talking about one person having authority over another in the church, rather what God has authorised us as members to do. Ministry is a privilege, not a right. The idea of ‘rank’ comes from the word usually translated submit, be subordinate, and gives the flavour of the word in a different context. You can be of equal status under the law but have different rank.

    There is an authority in the church, and that is for elders/pastors to implement the word of God in the lives of believers, so is hardly a hierarchy. The real authority is not found in the leaders themselves but the word they teach. (That, in one sentence, ought to be the death of shepherding/discipleship and any other unbiblical form of submission.)

    That really will have to do for now!

  19. Ken wrote:

    Daniel Wallace has if I recall some experience and comment on this

    You might be surprised to learn that my husband and I are friends of Dan Wallace. We shared a wonderful dinner together a few years ago.

  20. @ Ken:
    And Dan is not monolithic even thought he swings complementarian.
    Here is a note he sent to CBMW in which he felt his intent was misunderstood.

    “That’s far more than what I actually wrote on two fronts. First, nowhere in the essay did I say that I could never embrace egalitarianism. Not even close. Instead, what I said was that I could not go against my conscience and that, in my view, egalitarians were doing exegetical gymnastics. But even here I couched my statement with a note of personal perspective. Throughout the essay you will see qualifiers such as “For me at least,” “I think,” “probably,” etc. These points were mentioned specifically in relation to my exegetical certainty about the role of women in the church.”

    http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/11/07/daniel-wallace-requests-rewrite/

  21. @ dee:
    Actually, I’m not surprised! There is only one Body and we should fellowship and benefit from all of it. Even if this sometimes gets you into trouble with less broadminded Christians …..

    Sorry for my triad of posts, the first is for you, and the last for A Mom, but I chose Post Comment and then it is too late to insert that.

  22. @ dee:
    @ Ken:
    Here is a further statement from that same quoted post.
    “Allow me to clarify my view: Both since my exegesis is not certain and since this is not a central issue to the Christian faith, I cannot be as firm in my position or attitude as I can be on other issues. What is at stake here is one’s doctrinal and pragmatic taxonomy. The way the blogger wrote about my views it sounded as if he had a flatline in doctrinal nuancing. That, in my view, is not the healthiest way to think about scripture.”

  23. @ Ken:
    Finally, Dan considered my husband and I friends even though at the time, I was teaching a mixed Sunday school class. At the time he, along with us, were attending Bent Tree Bible Fellowship with Pete Briscoe as pastor.