Race Relations and the SBC: The Day the SBC Kicked African American Women in the Teeth

“My grandmother and my two aunts were an exhibition in resilience and resourcefulness and black womanhood. They rarely talked about the unfairness of the world with the words that I use now with my social justice friends, words like "intersectionality" and "equality", "oppression", and "discrimination". They didn't discuss those things because they were too busy living it, navigating it, surviving it.” 
― Janet Mock, Redefining Realness: My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love So Much More link

(There is so much to write about and you may see a few more posts  as we try to get caught up. Also, GBTC and I will be trying to revamp the blog this coming week now that I am feeling a bit better. Stay tuned.)

Well, this week the SBC decided to denounce white supremacy and the leaders are very proud of themselves for their leadership in racial relations. I am certainly glad that they don't support white supremacy but I think that the SBC has far deeper problems when it comes to race relations.

In 2008, Bob Allen of Ethics Daily wrote Report: LifeWay Pulls Magazine Featuring Women Preachers

LifeWay Christian Stores reportedly pulled a Christian magazine from its racks because five smiling women on its cover are pastors."It is contrary to what we believe," Chris Turner, a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention publishing house, which runs the nationwide chain, said in a story by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The newspaper said the September-October 2008 issue of Gospel Today, an "urban, faith-based" lifestyle magazine geared toward African-American Christians, could still be purchased in more than 100 LifeWay stores, but only from under the counter by request from a store clerk. 

Female leadership within the African American church

As African Americans suffered under slavery and the days of Jim Crow, the black church was pivotal in maintaining faith and hope within the community. Women were the back bones of the church community.

In the book, Rhetorical Healing: The Reeducation of Contemporary Black Womanhood, Tamika L. Carey expands on this.

Christianity Today posted The Legacy of Women in the Black Church written by Tiffany Thomas, an African American preacher. She, too, addressed the pivotal role of the African American woman in the church.

Black women have a long and intricate history with the church. Women, making up 70 to 90 percent of black congregations, have always found the institution of the church a place of refuge, of solace and hope. As far back as African American history begins, during a time when their bodies were bound by the violence of slavery, black women gathered to worship communally a God who gave freedom and liberation in the salvific power of Christ.

The Civil Rights Movement, a movement that is inextricably bound to the African American church was primarily a movement of black women. While the great male leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. typically get the credit, it was women like Rosa Parks and Fannie Lou Hamer, and the tens of thousands of unnamed women who were at the March on Washington in 1963 who planned, participated, and even died for the movement.

…. I was unafraid to take on the mantle of leadership because of the women—the black women—who taught me to stand, to serve, and to testify. These women taught me to commit my life to the Lord and to the service of his Bride, the church. And when I stand in the pulpit, I stand with them. I stand for them. I stand on the shoulders of the women who are the propagators of the black church.

Adopting the model of patriarchy and the plantation as a symbol of respectability

Sadly, post slavery, some men within the black church, decided to structure the church based on *respectability* which they based on the roles modeled by white male leaders of the antebellum plantations.

However, it is still a fact that the black church is made up of, and reliant upon, women.

Why I believe this incident is both indicative of a racial and a gender issue within the SBC.

When this incident occurred, I called LifeWay to ask why they hid the magazine. The person with whom I spoke said that it was against SBC policy to have women pastors. I then asked why they didn't hide the October 2008 issue of Christianity Today. He didn't know what I was talking about. Let me show you. That CT issue featured Anne Graham Lotz in an article titled A Reverent Maverick : Anne Graham Lotz says her success is due to God. Yes. But she is still an extraordinary preacher. Here is the relevant quote.

She believes women can be ordained, but has chosen not to be. 

The person with whom I spoke said "But she's Billy Graham's daughter!" I told him that it seemed to me that if a woman is white and famous, it is OK to support women pastors. However, if she is a racial minority and a pastor, it is fine to treat her story like it is pornorgraphy. There was no resolution to our conversation.

So, we know the SBC has no problem with Anne Graham Lotz supporting female pastors but is quite concerned when Black female preachers show up on the cover of a magazine. This is a kick in the teeth to the generations of women who held the black church together while the SBC was doing its darndest to stay segregated.

LifeWay and the SBC should have put that magazine in a place of honor and gotten down on their knees to thank God for these women who persevered against the evil history of segregation in the SBC. Until the SBC starts honoring women for the vital roles they have played in leading the church during the days of slavery and Jim Crow, the resolution denouncing white supremacy will ring hollow for me.


Comments

Race Relations and the SBC: The Day the SBC Kicked African American Women in the Teeth — 205 Comments

  1. The newspaper said the September-October 2008 issue of Gospel Today, an “urban, faith-based” lifestyle magazine geared toward African-American Christians…

    Whose cover remains “Whites Only”; don’t know if this was deliberate or someone on staff was just real clueless.

    …could still be purchased in more than 100 LifeWay stores, but only from under the counter by request from a store clerk.

    Just like Playboy or Hustler way-back-when.

    The person with whom I spoke said “But she’s Billy Graham’s daughter!”

    i.e. Highborn of the Royal House of Graham (all genuflect).

  2. I had the same thought as HUG regarding this quote: “… only from under the counter by request from a store clerk.”

    That’s where liquor stores used to keep what were once called stag mags, because having them on open display was offensive. The parallel to the manner in which Lifeway and SBC handled the Gospel Today issue is shameful.

  3. I don’t know if they’d let Anne Graham Lotz through now like they once did. While I supported the measure, I felt like it will not do much of anything. And I don’t know why they are so proud of themselves. I mean it took three votes and an emergency meeting to pass it after a huge firestorm of controversy. I certainly wonder if they passed it just to make themselves look good, not because they really meant it.

    Along with the extreme authoritarianism, the stuff people like TGC have been writing lately about slavery and Machiavelli doesn’t give me much hope that they have any interest in freedom for all.

  4. Let’s face it, the SBC wants it to be 1948. No Blacks, Latinos, Asians in our lily white pews.
    I am going to have a Chinese daughter in law. I know she won’t be welcomed in a SBC church in Deep East Texas( the ” good ole” Pine Curtain”). Oh, they may give her ” lip-service” and say she is ” welcome” but in reality, will always be looked at with some suspicion. ( I hope if they live in America, they live someplace like Seattle)

  5. The resolution rang hollow for me when it concluded with a prayer for “those who advocate racist ideologies and those who are thereby deceived” but no prayer for the healing of those that have been injured by these practices.

  6. Like I keep sayin’, any church or parachurch organization that refuses to grant women full enfranchisement will not see the 22nd century.

  7. Seriously now, why are supposedly free thinking adults still part of this organization? When it stubbornly clings to it’s racist and mysoginist disfunction why do they still attend and give them money? Why not go down the street to the church to “The Church of Lighter Baggage”? Or just stay home?
    I know there are SBC members in this group that could enlighten us with their own experience

  8. The SBC is not serious about race relations. When the only black President was elected he ran unopposed. To the best of my knowledge there are few if any black men in leadership roles in the SBC. It is all talk.

  9. Loren Haas wrote:

    When it stubbornly clings to it’s racist and mysoginist disfunction why do they still attend and give them money?

    Because at some level they agree. Perhaps they whole heartedly agree, or perhaps they only see that side of it enough to think that it is really not all that important. Don’t even consider believing what people say when people say one thing and do another.

    Or maybe they think that things have come a long way and it takes time and that things are moving too fast anyhow and we all need to slow down and proceed carefully because-because-they themselves don’t want to have to straighten their spine and take a few hits for doing the right thing.

    I have a couple of grandkids of a different race. Been there. I have no patience left. I want to hear no excuses. I leave people to God. But they best give me a wide berth.

  10. I thought the SBC formally denounced and apologized for SBC sanctioned racism years ago? So what gives with this new denunciation?

    It’s wonderful that the SBC recognizes that racism is wrong, but why are they still defending sexism?

    I bet a hundred years from now, some SBC talking head will be giving a formal apology to women every where for having endorsed sexism for years and years (which is really what they are doing under gender complementarianism).

    How distasteful that SBC-backed stores would treat magazines with women pastors on the cover as though they are the same thing as dirty magazines.

  11. Daisy wrote:

    I thought the SBC formally denounced and apologized for SBC sanctioned racism years ago? So what gives with this new denunciation?

    It’s wonderful that the SBC recognizes that racism is wrong, but why are they still defending sexism?

    I bet a hundred years from now, some SBC talking head will be giving a formal apology to women every where for having endorsed sexism for years and years (which is really what they are doing under gender complementarianism).

    How distasteful that SBC-backed stores would treat magazines with women pastors on the cover as though they are the same thing as dirty magazines.

    I can just about guarantee you there is no formal plan to address racism or allow people of color to hold any high-level positions in the SBC. Even as the SBC declines it will be the brave man to acknowledge sexism in the SBC.

  12. Born Isabella Baumfree in Ulster County, New York, around 1797, she was freed by the New York State Emancipation Act of 1827 and lived in New York City for a time. After taking the name Sojourner Truth, which she felt God had given her, she assumed the “mission” of spreading “the Truth” across the country.

    She became famous as an itinerant preacher, drawing huge crowds with her oratory (and some said “mystical gifts”) wherever she appeared. She became one of an active group of black women abolitionists, lectured before numerous abolitionist audiences, and was friends with such leading white abolitionists as James and Lucretia Mott and Harriet Beecher Stowe.

    http://www.cbn.com/special/blackhistory/bio_sojournertruth.aspx

  13. The interesting thing is that the contingent within the SBC that is leading the way on race relations is the younger, neo-calvinist group. I recently attended a Gospel Coalition convention (a new adventure for me) and I was thrilled to see how young and how racially diverse the crowd was. That alone was with worth going there. I was also impressed at how many women were there, especially 20s & 30s women. I happened to sit behind two mothers work there 20 something daughters and had a very interesting conversation with them. I couldn’t help at the time thinning t about this blog and how the gospel coalition is negatively portrayed here. I found the whole experience completely opposite of the usual portrayal here and especially that conversation. They were so full of life and so optimistic – compared to the typical Debbie-downer comments here.

  14. @ Philip Miller:
    Philip Miller wrote:

    The interesting thing is that the contingent within the SBC that is leading the way on race relations is the younger, neo-calvinist group. I recently attended a Gospel Coalition convention (a new adventure for me) and I was thrilled to see how young and how racially diverse the crowd was. That alone was with worth going there. I was also impressed at how many women were there, especially 20s & 30s women. I happened to sit behind two mothers work there 20 something daughters and had a very interesting conversation with them. I couldn’t help at the time thinning t about this blog and how the gospel coalition is negatively portrayed here. I found the whole experience completely opposite of the usual portrayal here and especially that conversation. They were so full of life and so optimistic – compared to the typical Debbie-downer comments here.

    Phillip: How many women were there?

  15. @ mot:
    I don’t really know, but I’d guess maybe 25-30 percent- more than I would have expected. And I was really impressed at how many younger people were there guys and women. I think it was during spring break for some colleges, I believe the two young women I mentioned I talked to were on their College spring break

  16. K.D. wrote:

    I am going to have a Chinese daughter in law. I know she won’t be welcomed in a SBC church in Deep East Texas( the ” good ole” Pine Curtain”). Oh, they may give her ” lip-service” and say she is ” welcome” but in reality, will always be looked at with some suspicion. ( I hope if they live in America, they live someplace like Seattle)

    Unfortunately racism is still a reality. My wife is of Chinese descent, after we were married, the bank gave her a hard time accessing our joint accounts because her ethnicity didn’t match her last name. And my city is pretty diverse. go figure.

  17. Philip Miller wrote:

    I don’t really know, but I’d guess maybe 25-30 percent- more than I would have expected.

    I’ve read stats that 52% of the population is female. Just saying.

  18. Muff Potter wrote:

    Like I keep sayin’, any church or parachurch organization that refuses to grant women full enfranchisement will not see the 22nd century.

    I like the cut of your jib, young man!

  19. Philip Miller wrote:

    They were so full of life and so optimistic – compared to the typical Debbie-downer comments here.

    I think the term here would be “deebie-downer”.

  20. I remember my shock at the women when I read the initial article on the YRR. They seemed to joyfully accept what to me was clearĺy a second-class position. Apparently accepting this because of the intellectual system in Calvinism. intellectual rigor they hadn’t found in the SBC churches up to then

  21. TomkeinOK wrote:

    I remember my shock at the women when I read the initial article on the YRR. They seemed to joyfully accept what to me was clearĺy a second-class position. Apparently accepting this because of the intellectual system in Calvinism. intellectual rigor they hadn’t found in the SBC churches up to then

    I will never understand a religious system where you are just considered an add on to the real thing and are even an add on after you die and go to heaven.

  22. Philip Miller wrote:

    The interesting thing is that the contingent within the SBC that is leading the way on race relations is the younger, neo-calvinist group. I recently attended a Gospel Coalition convention (a new adventure for me) and I was thrilled to see how young and how racially diverse the crowd was. That alone was with worth going there. I was also impressed at how many women were there, especially 20s & 30s women. I happened to sit behind two mothers work there 20 something daughters and had a very interesting conversation with them. I couldn’t help at the time thinning t about this blog and how the gospel coalition is negatively portrayed here. I found the whole experience completely opposite of the usual portrayal here and especially that conversation. They were so full of life and so optimistic – compared to the typical Debbie-downer comments here.

    The neo-Cal men do not value women at the same level as they see themselves. So I would challenge your thinking on that point alone.

    For all the talk of ‘respect’ and ‘differences’, there is an attitude of requiring for women to be ‘sub’ to men and that crosses over the race issue also. You can’t praise neo-Cal men for overcoming racism while they still are slogging around in the male-headship mire demanding women to bend the knee to their ‘leadership’. It doesn’t work that way.

    Either it all comes to recognizing one another as human persons worthy of respect as bearers of the image of God, or we are fooling ourselves. The neo-Cal males may wear a shirt that says ‘not a racist’, but they have tatooed on their fore-heads that they are worthy of the attentions of a subordinated, submissive class of humans.

    I like it that God made humans in such a way that the males still retain the vestiges of mammary glands on their chests. Ah, the great wisdom of the Creator in bringing us into humility before Him. 🙂

  23. @ TomkeinOK:
    Also, the first article I read about Driscol’s church in Seattle (written in the early days of the church) discussed several couples who had joined the church. Very depressing. In each case the wife dropped out of grad school or her profession and stayed at home raising several children. It was cĺèar this was the only proper role for women according to this church.

  24. Christiane wrote:

    The neo-Cal males may wear a shirt that says ‘not a racist’, but they have tatooed on their fore-heads that they are worthy of the attentions of a subordinated, submissive class of humans.

    What are these men afraid of?

  25. TomkeinOK wrote:

    @ TomkeinOK:
    Also, the first article I read about Driscol’s church in Seattle (written in the early days of the church) discussed several couples who had joined the church. Very depressing. In each case the wife dropped out of grad school or her profession and stayed at home raising several children. It was cĺèar this was the only proper role for women according to this church.

    The attitudes about ‘women’ extend into our political scenes also. The ‘place of women’ is discussed BY MEN in committees to do with reproductive issues and also the place of women in the military. And yet, and yet, the reality is a young woman named Crystal who defended such men on what would have been a killing field two days ago in Alexandria.

    ?

  26. mot wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    The neo-Cal males may wear a shirt that says ‘not a racist’, but they have tatooed on their fore-heads that they are worthy of the attentions of a subordinated, submissive class of humans.

    What are these men afraid of?

    their own weakness?

  27. Christiane wrote:

    mot wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    The neo-Cal males may wear a shirt that says ‘not a racist’, but they have tatooed on their fore-heads that they are worthy of the attentions of a subordinated, submissive class of humans.

    What are these men afraid of?

    their own weakness?

    Could it be they wish to be gods now and in the after-life?

  28. @ mot:
    looks like it, with the ESS business of subjugating women to men in ‘heaven’ (sounds more like hell to me)

  29. Christiane wrote:

    @ mot:
    looks like it, with the ESS business of subjugating women to men in ‘heaven’ (sounds more like hell to me)

    I do not understand how women even breath in such an oxygen free environment. The men that push this false doctrine will be punished one day.

  30. @ mot:
    I would think that the MOMENT a person learned what the ESS doctrine taught about Christ,
    that person would be so shocked and appalled that they would walk away from such a group,
    but I think that this movement began long ago with some preliminary ‘shockers’ that people bought into:

    that Our Lord was NOT the center of Scripture

    that His Words and actions were not more important than those of anyone else in Scripture

    the work of the ESS men began in earnest the first day they got away with putting Christ down and focusing elsewhere

    Not everyone was fooled, but a lot of people got caught up in this who didn’t think it through or respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit to keep the focus ON Christ always

  31. Christiane wrote:

    the work of the ESS men began in earnest the first day they got away with putting Christ down and focusing elsewhere

    So many of these men rarely even speak of Christ and preach very little from the Gospels.

  32. mot wrote:

    Could it be they wish to be gods now and in the after-life?

    This is not the place and I am not the one, but about the issue of people being gods. There are some very disturbing (to me) ideas both Catholic and Orthodox which go too far toward that direction, IMO. So let me say, that while the LDS take the idea in one direction, they are not the only people who have, well, high expectations. It would not surprise me if there are somewhat similar ideas floating around in some protestant circles.

  33. TomkeinOK wrote:

    I remember my shock at the women when I read the initial article on the YRR. They seemed to joyfully accept what to me was clearĺy a second-class position. Apparently accepting this because of the intellectual system in Calvinism. intellectual rigor they hadn’t found in the SBC churches up to then

    Intellectual rigor like this inspiring quote about women by John Piper someone on FB posted today:

    “A Christian woman’s true freedom [and, of course, she would also say a Christian man’s true freedom] lies on the other side of a very small gate — humble obedience — but that gate leads out into a largeness of life undreamed of by the liberators of the world, to a place where the God-given differentiation between the sexes is not obfuscated but celebrated, where our inequalities are seen as essential to the image of God, for it is in male and female, in male as male and female as female, not as two identical and interchangeable halves, that the image is manifested.” http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/peaches-in-paradise

    Oops, hasn’t Piper always trumpeted the traditional comp line of equal before God but different in role? Guess he’s either changed his mind or made a mistake and revealed what he really thinks!

  34. @ Christiane:
    To be upfront, when I see politicians say such things. I check their church affiliation. Most of the time they are Baptist. They were taught this in churich. As the old saying goes ‘God said it, I believe it, that settles it!’

  35. ishy wrote:

    Oops

    @ ishy:
    At first I sort of understood, because I had been totally shocked in college when I found out how much about church history and Christian theology other students
    knew. I had heard so little of this during my years in SBC chuches. Then my roommate my senior year was RC. I was so jealous of the centuries of Catholic scholarship. Ì was exactly the kind ocollege Baptist ‘intellectual’ the YRR were targeting!

  36. TomkeinOK wrote:

    At first I sort of understood, because I had been totally shocked in college when I found out how much about church history and Christian theology other students
    knew. I had heard so little of this during my years in SBC chuches. Then my roommate my senior year was RC. I was so jealous of the centuries of Catholic scholarship. Ì was exactly the kind ocollege Baptist ‘intellectual’ the YRR were targeting!

    The one thing the YRR doesn’t talk about though is how they only read other New Calvinists and YRR. There’s really no intellectualism or scholarship in that–it’s all a charade. And their church history usually is only a few people like Augustine, but they must feel like if they quote those few people enough it seems like more, I guess.

    I usually can stop a YRR by quoting Jesus. Many don’t realize that most Calvinista authors don’t talk about what Jesus actually said, and that’s because the stuff Jesus said is mostly contradictory to New Calvinist theology. Like when He said, “All authority under heaven and earth is given to me…” in Matthew 28.

  37. I guess the rocks will have to cry out with the Gospel since the SBC (and NeoCalvinists) don’t want women with the Holy Spirit to preach and teach the Good News.

    The SBC boyz and the NeoCalvinists have a lot to answer for when they meet up with our Lord.

  38. Philip Miller wrote:

    I couldn’t help at the time thinning t about this blog and how the gospel coalition is negatively portrayed here. I found the whole experience completely opposite of the usual portrayal here and especially that conversation. They were so full of life and so optimistic – compared to the typical Debbie-downer comments here.

    I too am a lovely person and conversationalist and was loads of fun to talk to at these NeoCalvinist events. Ditto for others around me.

    It doesn’t change the fact that the Gospel Coalition is pushing man-made, secondary issues as primary issues in place of The Gospel (such as complementarianism and the heretical Eternal Subordination of the Son semi-Arian heresy that was invented to subordinate women).

    I am glad to have left the oppressive world of NeoCalvivnism and its legalism and authoritarianism. I took all of my NeoCal books, ripped them up, and tossed them in the recycling container. I’ve never felt better!

    I deeply regret partaking in NeoCalvinism and I hope that any literature that I gave anyone on the topics gathers dust and they are too busy to read it.

    Take care.

  39. Hello, this is my first time posting, but I have enjoyed reading TWW for a few months now. I am an SBC pastor. I normally attend the annual meeting but did not this year. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on the issues here and the issues are many. Racism is not as bad in the SBC as it used to be. Over 10% of our congregations are identified as minoroties. Other white churches are becoming much more diverse. That is true of the church I serve and I a man pushing for more and more diversity. It is the only way our churches on earth will look like the church in heaven. That being said, there is a biblical argument against women pastors and elders that I haven’t seen communicated here. Still, I have been blessed by female leadership on Budget & Finance Committees, Personnel Committees, Pastor Search Committees and other key positions of leadership and influence. I also expect everyone reading this knows that Baptist churches are autonomous. We cooperate voluntarily. I am not a Calvinist, but more and more in our denomination are. Few ordain women into ministry, but some do.

  40. Christiane wrote:

    You can’t praise neo-Cal men for overcoming racism while they still are slogging around in the male-headship mire demanding women to bend the knee to their ‘leadership’. It doesn’t work that way.

    So I may be the skunk in the room for going here, but Dwight McKissic, who authored the resolution condemning the Alt-Right and racism is himself a noted homophobe, besides supporting second class status for women. Why are the rights of gay people and women not important to him? They have both experienced discrimination based on the biblical interpretation of the SBC. McKissick is a brave man for confronting the SBC, but is he going to be apologizing in 10-20 years for the treatment he and the SBC have dished out to women and gays?

  41. Velour wrote:

    I deeply regret partaking in NeoCalvinism and I hope that any literature that I gave anyone on the topics gathers dust and they are too busy to read it.

    Gotta start somewhere in the church. By and large, we are all recovering from some kind of off-kilter religious influence in our early days, until we figured it out – the foundation of our faith, in any case. Imagine how some of the Seattle people feel who participated in that Hill group. Hopefully, they are figuring it out, by the grace of God.

  42. mot wrote:

    a religious system where you are just considered an add on to the real thing and are even an add on after you die and go to heaven

    That’s a good description. An add on to the real thing. My stars… so ridiculous.

  43. Velour wrote:

    I deeply regret partaking in NeoCalvinism

    Velour, at least you weren’t running the schtick. Those in leadership of that game have millstones reserved for them in the hereafter, if they do not repent (as Max mentioned yesterday).

  44. K.D. wrote:

    Let’s face it, the SBC wants it to be 1948. No Blacks, Latinos, Asians in our lily white pews.

    I sincerely doubt that it’s as uni-directional as that, where white folks are always the bad guy. I’m guessin’ that there’s more than a few folks of color who have no desire whatsoever to mix with a bunch of white people.

  45. Muff Potter wrote:

    I sincerely doubt that it’s as uni-directional as that, where white folks are always the bad guy. I’m guessin’ that there’s more than a few folks of color who have no desire whatsoever to mix with a bunch of white people.

    Given the things I’ve heard out of the mouths of some of my fellow white people during conversations being had on Sunday morning as they’re leaving church, I can’t say that I blame those people of color who have no desire to hang around us white folk!

  46. JYJames wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I deeply regret partaking in NeoCalvinism
    Velour, at least you weren’t running the schtick. Those in leadership of that game have millstones reserved for them in the hereafter, if they do not repent (as Max mentioned yesterday).

    Amen.

  47. JYJames wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I deeply regret partaking in NeoCalvinism and I hope that any literature that I gave anyone on the topics gathers dust and they are too busy to read it.
    Gotta start somewhere in the church. By and large, we are all recovering from some kind of off-kilter religious influence in our early days, until we figured it out – the foundation of our faith, in any case. Imagine how some of the Seattle people feel who participated in that Hill group. Hopefully, they are figuring it out, by the grace of God.

    Yes, I am so glad to throw off all of those shackles and escape from that spiritual carbon monoxide poisoning that is known as NeoCalvinism.

    I am out of the spiritual bondage of an “Egypt-land” (“church”/gulag) that held me captive for many years.

  48. Velour

    I deeply regret partaking in NeoCalvinism and I hope that any literature that I gave anyone on the topics gathers dust and they are too busy to read it.
    Take care.

    BUT, you left. That is a good testimony. I think many of us feel guilt, regret for some of our beliefs, actions. I pray that somehow God intervenes in the lives of people I encouraged in poor doctrine. God is able, He knows are repentant hearts.

  49. Muff Potter wrote:

    I sincerely doubt that it’s as uni-directional as that, where white folks are always the bad guy. I’m guessin’ that there’s more than a few folks of color who have no desire whatsoever to mix with a bunch of white people.

    I’m going from memory but I recall in Canadian geneticist David Suzuki’s biography, he recounts how his family was interred by the Canadian government (along with other Japanese Canadians), during WWII. They lost their property and possessions, it was shameful. No surprise his parents were less than thrilled he married a Caucasian woman.
    Nothing happens in a vacuum.
    However there are jerks who just want to cause trouble.
    My wife had to deal with a nasty patient that accused her of racism.
    The irony being they are both of Chinese descent.
    She’s mixed heritage (Muslim, Chinese, Filipino) so doesn’t look like “traditional” Chinese. Once her heritage was raised, the complaint vanished.

  50. Velour wrote:

    I guess the rocks will have to cry out with the Gospel since the SBC (and NeoCalvinists) don’t want women with the Holy Spirit to preach and teach the Good News.

    The SBC boyz and the NeoCalvinists have a lot to answer for when they meet up with our Lord.

    I do not think these men remotely know Jesus and are totally afraid of the Holy Spirit.

  51. It’s increasingly clear that current SBC leaders do not believe Galatians 3:28 “Gone is the distinction between … male and female — you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Be they black, yellow, red or white, women are not precious in God’s sight based on the way they are treated in some SBC churches where there is no oneness in race, class and gender characteristic of the true Body of Christ.

    It’s not surprising that LifeWay pulled the magazine. They are part of the New Calvinist establishment within SBC and must stay on message. With this move, they have slammed both race and gender once again.

  52. Muff Potter wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    Let’s face it, the SBC wants it to be 1948. No Blacks, Latinos, Asians in our lily white pews.
    I sincerely doubt that it’s as uni-directional as that, where white folks are always the bad guy. I’m guessin’ that there’s more than a few folks of color who have no desire whatsoever to mix with a bunch of white people.

    I am going to say something here, and I don’t mean to be ugly, but I grew up in a town that was well know for racism and the Ku Klux Klan….that was exactly the reason the members at the town’s Baptist churches would give when there was an expansion by SBC. Missions money for urban areas.

  53. “LifeWay and the SBC should have put that magazine in a place of honor and gotten down on their knees to thank God for these women who persevered against the evil history of segregation in the SBC. Until the SBC starts honoring women for the vital roles they have played in leading the church during the days of slavery and Jim Crow, the resolution denouncing white supremacy will ring hollow for me.” (Dee)

    Amen! Sure looks like a bad case of “white MAN supremacy” still at work within SBC.

    I wonder what Priscilla Shirer thinks of this development? She is one of the few women blessed by SBC’s New Calvinist regime to speak in front of their women, or I should say “our girls” (that’s how Matt Chandler refers to female members at his church). Beth Moore is another woman given the green light by the new reformers. You would think Shirer and Moore would be throwing a fit about this … but they would not be considered “pastors” I suppose.

    SBC leaders should indeed get down on their knees … and while they are there thank God for ALL women that God has blessed them with. If it weren’t for faithful women, thousands of SBC churches would have closed their doors over the years. They outnumber men at prayer meetings, hold most of the Sunday School teaching positions, coordinate most of the mission activities, influence our children spiritually through the week, and drag their sorry husbands to church. Except for that latter point, they have contributed much to the Kingdom of God.

  54. When the SBC big wigs talk about/encourages diversity in the ranks, they really mean a diversity in men. Women are segregated/looked down upon regardless of race……… and it keeps getting worse.

  55. I was born and raised in the southern baptist convention. It has always been full of racist, women-hating, pompous, rube men. Hearing that Paige Patterson got a thrill out of a woman being beat by her husband just reminded me how vile the men who go to Baptist churches are.

    The two faces of NeoCalvinist to me is JD Hall, the thug that cyberbullied and cyberstalked a fifteen year old boy and obnoxious childish brat Mark Driscall. These two childish jerks is all I needed to see to know NeoCalvinist is a cult for brat abusive immature men.

  56. "When the SBC big wigs talk about/encourages diversity in the ranks, they really mean a diversity in men. Women are segregated/looked down upon regardless of race……… and it keeps getting worse."

    I would like to know why the women in the Southern Baptist Convention don't love their little girls enough to not want them growing up being treated like this, hearing this cr@p about themselves?

    Why won't any one of these selfish women think about the misery and self-hating they are helping put in their little girls?

  57. I grew up in a very diverse church and community; there were tall white people, short white people, young white people, old white people, etc. I remember when there was at least one openly racist individual in my church and there was a little negative reaction when my dad and his friend brought the first black kids on the church van. I was an early teen at the time. There was a strong general consensus that white people and black people shouldn’t date or be married. At that time Latinos, Asians, etc. constituted less than 1% of the whole county. By the time I graduated high school, there was one Anglo-Asian couple in the church that had other family in the church and were an integral part of the social fabric.

    The demographics of that church didn’t change much as the demographics of the rural comnunity were pretty stagnant. When the only Indian girl in my high school asked me to her prom, I was a little concerned about what people might think, but the people at my church who knew were very supportive and encouraging. About ten years later the son, grandson, and great-grandson of that openly racist church member were all a part of that church. The great-grandson grew up near Washington D.C. in a multi-racial environment and was very comfortable dating black girls. A few short years later I walked into that same church with my own black fiancee from Los Angeles a few years later, I didn’t even get a sideways glance from anyone that I or my wife noticed. When we visited for a reception after our wedding, there were quite a few people from that church there including two former pastors and the son and daughter-in-law of the racist man. When my friend overheard an another older lady in the reception line say “she’s a little darker than us, but she sure is a sweet girl”, he had to step away for a moment as he almost burst out in laughter. That lady grew up in a place and time where black people were afraid to go after dark and had just made the kindest, most sincere compliment of anyone there.

    Since then, we’ve been involved with five Southern Baptist churches. Two of those churches were pastored by older white males, two by younger white males, and one Latino. Although one of these churches lacked diversity on staff, they were all diverse enough to defy the stereotype. The only church I had great hope for was the one pastored by the Latino. My wife didn’t like those that were those pastored by older white guys, but was attracted to the rest. In the end, all five had significant significant structural or institutional issues where the organism was being destroyed by the organization. We were the only people remaining on the last Sunday of the one that was a church plant which dwindled from forty to us when the pastor left and the pastor of the parent church tried to change everything. Two of the churches that my wife likes lacked a sound Spiritual foundation and the third was trending heavily towards Calvinism and patriarchal authoritarianism with the leadership seeming intent on dividing the people from one another into manageable groups suited for top down leadership.

    I had significant issues with the two churches pastored by older white men, but it was difficult for me to see the things my wife was seeing. My wife is cultured and has excelled in an environment dominated by white males. Her mother went to NYU at 16. She married a guy from the country who picked up a little culture along the way, so whatever she sees that makes her uncomfortable is reason enough for my family to keep looking.

    I have not been part of an SBC church for the last couple of years, but I have seen the institution become more racially friendly during my lifetime. Unfortunately, the power that transformed people’s hearts and minds when I was young is rapidly being replaced by a humanistic, mechanistic mechanism of operation. Racism and racial bias is a legitimate issue and may be a great reason for some folks to keep looking, but institutionally is a symptom rather than a primary issues. In addressing this issue from the top down perspective, I fear that we tend to reinforce the structure of a church that is becoming increasingly top-down. I know that racial and bias still exist, but I’m afraid that fighting for a person or group’s place at the table leaves us with a diverse table of people who may change the attitude toward diversity whole reinforcing other primary institutional rottenness. I think we are seeing this happen with the YRR crowd and their institutions.

  58. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    When the SBC big wigs talk about/encourages diversity in the ranks, they really mean a diversity in men. Women are segregated/looked down upon regardless of race……… and it keeps getting worse.

    Yes, as Matt Chandler says “I preach to men.” Diversity takes on a whole new meaning in current SBC life. Complementariaty is a form of diversity to the reformed mind, but that practice is really just a theological hammer to subordinate women by twisting a few Scriptures.

    Speaking of diversity, the SBC big wigs promote theological diversity under the SBC big tent. New Calvinist SBC leaders preach unity of diverse beliefs about God’s plan of salvation just to buy them more time to takeover the denomination. It’s a bait-and-switch maneuver that is working well for them right now.

  59. scott hendrixson wrote:

    I have seen the institution become more racially friendly during my lifetime

    I believe that is a direct result of the New Calvinist movement. Whether or not they are personally racially-friendly in their heart, the young reformers like to point out the racial sins of SBC generations that came before them. It’s a marketing strategy to look more favorable in the eyes of Millennials and Generation Xers considering traditional or reformed churches to attend. Granted, there are some remnants of racism within SBC – old sins die hard – but I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years and never experienced church leaders or congregations that I thought were racist. Now, female subordination is another matter.

  60. Max wrote:

    Speaking of diversity, the SBC big wigs promote theological diversity under the SBC big tent. New Calvinist SBC leaders preach unity of diverse beliefs about God’s plan of salvation just to buy them more time to takeover the denomination. It’s a bait-and-switch maneuver that is working well for them right now.

    Yeah, well, all you have to do is convince them to sign a piece of paper, then they have to obey you when you tell them what they believe.

  61. Worldwide, Protestant leaders are favorable toward female pastors: 75% favorable.

    This finding came from the fascinating 2011 “Global Survey of Evangelical Protestant Leaders” conducted by Pew Research. The survey was of the 2,196 participants in the Third Lausanne Congress of World Evangelization (founded by Billy Graham in the 1970s). This is a Global Missions conference.

    The survey reported —

    “Most say that men should be the religious leaders in the marriage and family (79%) and the main financial providers for the family (53%). But most do not think that women must stay home and raise children (63%). And a solid majority favors allowing women to serve as pastors (75%).”

    The survey is eye-opening. Download it from this page (link is on the far right): http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangelical-protestant-leaders/

  62. Guest wrote:

    The two faces of NeoCalvinist to me is JD Hall, the thug that cyberbullied and cyberstalked a fifteen year old boy and obnoxious childish brat Mark Driscall. These two childish jerks is all I needed to see to know NeoCalvinist is a cult for brat abusive immature me

    Yes. And the fact that some leaders in the Neo-Calvinist movement turn a blind eye to this behavior and don’t call it out, is a clear indication…

    –they don’t police their own AND
    –they excuse the arrogant words and actions of power-grabbing leaders because “it’s for the Gospel.”
    –they don’t feel that they are called to a higher standard.

    However, in fairness, Trevin Wax did publicly call out some of Mark Driscoll’s errors on The Gospel Coalition website. He didn’t go as far as many of us would, but it was as important article. You can search for it: “The Mars Hill Postmortem.”

    I don’t see the Gospel Coalition calling out arrogant bullies J.D. Hall or Phil Johnson (John MacArthur’s guy), nor do I see them discussing Mark Driscoll’s new church. Do they believe a zebra can change his stripes that quickly?

  63. Max wrote:

    I wonder what Priscilla Shirer thinks of this development? She is one of the few women blessed by SBC’s New Calvinist regime to speak in front of their women, or I should say “our girls” (that’s how Matt Chandler refers to female members at his church). Beth Moore is another woman given the green light by the new reformers. You would think Shirer and Moore would be throwing a fit about this … but they would not be considered “pastors” I suppose.

    I looked at Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer’s Twitter feeds. Not a word about this. They know they take the risk of having the Evangelical Thought Police punish them for speaking up.

    However, Beth Moore Bible Studies are what’s keeping the publishing division of the Southern Baptists alive.

    And I think these two women need to be like Queen Esther and speak up now. “For such a time as this.”

  64. Janey wrote:

    some leaders in the Neo-Calvinist movement turn a blind eye to this behavior and don’t call it out

    When it comes to advancing a movement quickly, one must go along with the good, the bad, and the ugly for a while. The New Calvinist elite put up with potty-mouth Driscoll for years because he was important to the new reformation … until he became a potato too hot to handle. The old guys leading the Calvinist Resurgence (e.g., TGC, T4G, Founders Ministries, etc.) may not agree with the methods and message of the young reformers, but they turn a deaf ear and blind eye to their antics as long as Calvinization of the American church continues.

  65. Janey wrote:

    Beth Moore Bible Studies are what’s keeping the publishing division of the Southern Baptists alive

    As well as her ministry! I’m not anti-Beth Moore, but do think she should step up and be counted on this continued subordination of women by Southern Baptists.

  66. Mae wrote:

    Velour
    “I deeply regret partaking in NeoCalvinism and I hope that any literature that I gave anyone on the topics gathers dust and they are too busy to read it.
    Take care.” – Velour

    BUT, you left. That is a good testimony. I think many of us feel guilt, regret for some of our beliefs, actions. I pray that somehow God intervenes in the lives of people I encouraged in poor doctrine. God is able, He knows are repentant hearts.

    True, Mae.

    Thanks for your wise words.

  67. mot wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    I guess the rocks will have to cry out with the Gospel since the SBC (and NeoCalvinists) don’t want women with the Holy Spirit to preach and teach the Good News.
    The SBC boyz and the NeoCalvinists have a lot to answer for when they meet up with our Lord.
    I do not think these men remotely know Jesus and are totally afraid of the Holy Spirit.

    Spot on, MOT.

  68. I’m not an advocate of ordination for either women or men, and am in a denom that ordains women.

    That said, not every person, male or female, who believes the Bible forbids women from ordination is a sexist or misogynist. That is a totally unfair accusation. My denom is clear where in the Bible it gets its’ view from, but is also able to reasonably discuss the divergent view rather than just say “agree with me or you are a bigot.”

    And there are quite a few black denominations that do not believe women can be ordained.

    Personally, I find it strange to criticize a store, run by a denomination that does not ordain women, for taking the magazine off the shelf. I don’t go into Pizza Hut and ask for a McDonald’s Happy Meal and then get ticked off if they don’t carry it. I do find it strange if they endorsed Anne Graham Lotz’s view on women’s ordination, but since she is not an ordained pastor they would have no reason to pull her article.

    Unfair tempest in a teapot.

  69. Philip Miller wrote:

    The interesting thing is that the contingent within the SBC that is leading the way on race relations is the younger, neo-calvinist group. I recently attended a Gospel Coalition convention (a new adventure for me) and I was thrilled to see how young and how racially diverse the crowd was.

    Whoopee. This while the Gospel™ Corporation celebrates and promotes the likes of Douglas Wilson, a hopelessly backwards-thinking misogynist, racist and apologist for sexual predators.

    Is this what you call “leading the way on race relations”? Forgive me, Philip, if I’m not impressed.

    They were so full of life and so optimistic – compared to the typical Debbie-downer comments here.

    “Debbie-downer comments”? Oh, you mean, facts. Like the fact that these ‘full-of-life’, ‘optimistic’ New Calvinists are infiltrating and taking over perfectly healthy churches, needlessly hurting people in the process. Or the fact that they relentlessly push the unnecessary doctrine of complementarianarianism, forcing women to stay married to abusive and dangerous men. Or the fact that some of them have taken to harassing people even after they’ve resigned as members of congregations, in clear violation of their constitutional rights.

    Call me a Debbie Downer if you like. I will continue to call out these fools as long as their evil ways continue.

  70. Janey wrote:

    Worldwide, Protestant leaders are favorable toward female pastors: 75% favorable.

    Click on my comment to see the link.

  71. Pastor Chris wrote:

    Hello, this is my first time posting,

    Welcome and thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

    Pastor Chris wrote:

    I a man pushing for more and more diversity.

    Good for you. I wish you success.

    Pastor Chris wrote:

    . That being said, there is a biblical argument against women pastors and elders that I haven’t seen communicated here

    We are well aware of the biblical argument for male only pastors and have discussed it at length for years. The point of this post was not to discuss they women pastors controversy. Instead it was to discuss the fact that the SBC has little understanding of the difficult history of black churches throughout the ages, especially when looking at slavery and Jim Crow.

    One may disagree with female pastors but one does not have to hide a magazine behind the counter in order for someone to read it. Does the SBC think that they must *protect* their snowflake constituency from the reality of women pastors? Must they do so, even knowing the painful history of the Black church? Why do the openly sell Anne Graham Lotz’s books, etc knowing that she advocates for women pastors. Is it because she is acceptable: white and famous?

    I truly believe that this action was a subtle form of racism by the SBC. They were the ones responsible for discrimination against the black church, seeking to segregate themselves from racial differences. They should have placed that article out on full view and accepted that this is what has happened.

    Their actions in this instance were deeply disturbing to me.

    Finally, the SBC says that churches are autonomous but I guarantee you that any church that hires a fable pastor will be summarily kicked out of the SBC. Meanwhile, they keep churches round that have a terrible history on child sex abuse. Autonomy is allowed only when convenient.

  72. Philip Miller wrote:

    I was really impressed at how many younger people were there guys and women

    The New Calvinist movement is largely a youth movement. Youth are targeted with cool conferences and popular books because they are easier to indoctrinate.

    Philip Miller wrote:

    on their College spring break

    Certainly! TGC, T4G, and Passion conferences always coincide with winter, spring, or summer breaks for college students. That segment is their primary target. It’s all about changing the theological belief and practice of a generation to Calvinize the church of tomorrow. Every religious conference is a kumbaya feel-good time when you get away from the ordinary to experience the extraordinary … and New Calvinism is indeed incredible, unbelievable, and phenomenal.

  73. Behind the counter?! LifeWay basically treated content about women gospel preachers as pornographic! This whole movement is just sick and wrong, falling far short of the Great Commission expected of the SBC and its various entities.

    Speaking of pornography, LifeWay promoted Driscoll’s nasty book “Real Marriage” until the potty-mouth preacher from Seattle fell out of favor.

  74. Philip Miller wrote:

    the gospel coalition is negatively portrayed here. I found the whole experience completely opposite of the usual portrayal here

    The problem with deception is that you don’t know you are deceived because you are deceived. TWW has long been recording authoritarian abuses and theological aberrations of the New Calvinist movement with facts and real-life testimonies of those who have escaped the snare. Everything that glitters is not gold. When you see it, you can’t un-see it … until then, you are oblivious to the pitfalls.

  75. @ Loren Haas:
    I ask this about my own behavior. Why did I stay at a misogynistic church for so long? I guess it was due to:

    1. Old friendships – (After I left, I still had those friendships, so this was a bad excuse.)

    2. I didn’t want to be a woman pastor, so it didn’t affect me. – (Well, it did affect me. Sexism — that women have no voice outside of women’s groups and child care, and women must put up with men’s bad behavior — was rampant in every area of the church.)

    3. Laziness — I didn’t see any obvious alternative church, so I didn’t bother looking. I was stuck in inertia.

    I was able to find a new church in 15 minutes of research. I had lunch with the pastor (alone with him!!) and interviewed him before I committed to making it my new home.

    When I left, my entire extended family came with me. I didn’t expect that. But one by one they expressed their unhappiness at the old church. I am very glad I left.

  76. “I had lunch with the pastor (alone with him!!) and interviewed him before I committed to making it my new home.
    When I left, my entire extended family came with me. I didn’t expect that. But one by one they expressed their unhappiness at the old church. I am very glad I left.”

    Janey, what a sweet inspiring story. Thank you;)

  77. Thom Rainer is scared of black lady preachers? Really? Do you have to show ID to buy a copy?

    Apologies if Top Downism has caused me to repeat a comment.

  78. Janey wrote:

    I had lunch with the pastor (alone with him!!) and interviewed him before I committed to making it my new home.

    Anyone reading TWW and other watchblogs realize just how critical it is to “interview” church leadership before you join up. They may want to know something about you, but it is more important that you know everything about them! It is equally important to watch and listen carefully for a period of time – church leaders can give a good first impression, but will usually reveal their bad side after a while. Some of these guys are masters at telling you what you want to hear. Sadly, gone are the days that you could trust just anyone who carried the title “Pastor.” Southern Baptist search committees are finding that even when they interview a candidate, they can’t be sure he is not lying to them about his theological leanings! The New Calvinist movement is successful largely because it is deceitful.

    If you have found your new church home a good home, where the love of God prevails as reflected in both pulpit and pew and where the name of Jesus is lifted up above all others (including Calvin), stay there! It may be very difficult to find another one.

  79. The exclusionary nature of many denominations and independent churches sickens me. In the Apostles’ day, being welcomed into a church was based on one’s behavior and dedication to Christ, not one’ bank statement, skin color, racial background or gender. The fact that places calling themselves “Houses of God” would make being a member of a different racial group, the poor, the sick, the desperate, the female sex a *mortal* sin that should be hidden and treated with contempt is sheer blasphemy. Who on earth do they think they’re serving? Didn’t they read the part about us being one in Christ and not lording over each other like the gentiles do?

    This hierarchical nonsense and the despising of what God himself called “good” when he finished creation has gone too far.

  80. For what it is like to be Black and female in the Church, listen to the podcast – Truth’s Table. They did a joint podcast with Pass the Mic on March 28, 2017. Because these podcasts are made by and for Blacks, sometimes my husband and I find there are cultural/historical areas where we need to do research to understand some of the points.

  81. K.D. wrote:

    I am going to say something here, and I don’t mean to be ugly, but I grew up in a town that was well know for racism and the Ku Klux Klan….that was exactly the reason the members at the town’s Baptist churches would give when there was an expansion by SBC. Missions money for urban areas.

    Not ugly at all K.D. This is TWW, known for its diversity and tolerance for those who don’t particularly endear themselves to the prevailing view (Potter comes to mind). Try tacking into the wind at some other ixtian blog (fundagelical or progressive it makes no difference) and see what happens to you (generic you). Humans are tribal creatures each with their own likes, dislikes, and ways of looking at things, there’s no way around it. To say that one tribe is exempt from the negatives is disingenuous at best and pure Orwellian propaganda at worst.

  82. Loren R Haas wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    You can’t praise neo-Cal men for overcoming racism while they still are slogging around in the male-headship mire demanding women to bend the knee to their ‘leadership’. It doesn’t work that way.

    So I may be the skunk in the room for going here, but Dwight McKissic, who authored the resolution condemning the Alt-Right and racism is himself a noted homophobe, besides supporting second class status for women. Why are the rights of gay people and women not important to him? They have both experienced discrimination based on the biblical interpretation of the SBC. McKissick is a brave man for confronting the SBC, but is he going to be apologizing in 10-20 years for the treatment he and the SBC have dished out to women and gays?

    I am not seeing Dwight McKissick as someone who does not understand how discrimination against ANY group is something evil. I know that he recently pushed-back against the SBC when they refused to confront the ‘Alt Right’ issue; and he was successful. God only knows what the reputation of the SBC would have been without such push back, because Dwight and others in the SBC were able to get the organization to condemn Alt Right White Supremacist racism.

    Someday, SOMEDAY, it will dawn on people that there is a thread that runs through all the ‘phobias’ that is not Christian …. that homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, racism ….. all of these feed from the same trough, and it’s not from well of living water, no.

    I connected those dots a long time ago. Someday, other good people will begin to see the connection, I hope. I think Dwight will ‘get it’ someday, yes.

    You know, Crystal Griner who took a bullet firing at the man who tried to kill our Republican law makers …. she was African-American, lesbian, in a same-sex marriage, and a woman ….. she ticks off many boxes that call up contempt from the right, but that lady did her duty in spite of being injured without hesitation because IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. It is by belief that the NEXT TIME these legislators sit down to deal with women’s issues, racial issues, LBGT issues …. on that day they will remember the good heart of Crystal Griner, and they will begin to see beyond the ‘labels’ into the dignity of human persons and it may change their perspectives for the better. I hope. I will always hope for good to come. Small steps. Towards the light.

  83. Sam wrote:

    The exclusionary nature of many denominations and independent churches sickens me. In the Apostles’ day, being welcomed into a church was based on one’s behavior and dedication to Christ, not one’ bank statement, skin color, racial background or gender. The fact that places calling themselves “Houses of God” would make being a member of a different racial group, the poor, the sick, the desperate, the female sex a *mortal* sin that should be hidden and treated with contempt is sheer blasphemy. Who on earth do they think they’re serving? Didn’t they read the part about us being one in Christ and not lording over each other like the gentiles do?

    This hierarchical nonsense and the despising of what God himself called “good” when he finished creation has gone too far.

    Exactly right.

    I have never been so embarrassed as I was at my ex-NeoCalvinist gulag (Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley) when the pastors/elders rudely announced to newcomers that if they weren’t willing to sign an (oppressive, authoritarian, instructive) Membersip Covenant that they shouldn’t come back because how did they know you were one of theirs?!!!

    Shameful!

    The pastors/elders didn’t have the common decency to figure out that people had looked up the church, gotten dressed, and got there!

    My cheeks were scarlet.

    People

  84. Muff Potter wrote:

    K.D. wrote:

    I am going to say something here, and I don’t mean to be ugly, but I grew up in a town that was well know for racism and the Ku Klux Klan….that was exactly the reason the members at the town’s Baptist churches would give when there was an expansion by SBC. Missions money for urban areas.

    Not ugly at all K.D. This is TWW, known for its diversity and tolerance for those who don’t particularly endear themselves to the prevailing view (Potter comes to mind). Try tacking into the wind at some other ixtian blog (fundagelical or progressive it makes no difference) and see what happens to you (generic you). Humans are tribal creatures each with their own likes, dislikes, and ways of looking at things, there’s no way around it. To say that one tribe is exempt from the negatives is disingenuous at best and pure Orwellian propaganda at worst.

    Oh know, I’ve been booted off both the Calvinist and Anti-Calvinist SBC “pastoral” sites.( My understanding a permanent banning. I wear it with pride.) While there has been some “lip-service” toward being inclusive as Baptists, they are not there. Trust me, they are not. I became a “Done” about 5 years ago when the small church we attended decided to hold classes and “approve” folks before they could join. A Black family was visiting looking for a church home. The changes behind the “Pine Curtain” of East Texas are slow, if at all.

  85. Philip Miller wrote:

    The interesting thing is that the contingent within the SBC that is leading the way on race relations is the younger, neo-calvinist group.

    It’s good marketing.

    What happened this week was bad marketing.

    I think that’s about as deep as it goes.

  86. TomkeinOK wrote:

    Apparently accepting this because of the intellectual system in Calvinism. intellectual rigor they hadn’t found in the SBC churches up to then

    I didn’t go to church frequently for years and years. I hated the music and I got tired of dumbed down sermons about people’s family and golf game. And videos. Oh the videos! Agony.

    Mark Dever had very interesting sermons and that was one of the reasons I liked going to CHBC. That was before (i think) all this 9marx stuff, or at least not far in. I have gone presbyterian now and they are more intellectually rigorous, imo. But they are also more ‘liberal’ and accept women in all positions. Which is not at all true of the neocals.

  87. Philip Miller wrote:

    Debbie-downer comments here

    Jesus was sometimes a real Debbie-downer, too. You are going to have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously. Oh, and all the cool kids were there won’t work, either.

  88. TomkeinOK wrote:

    I remember my shock at the women when I read the initial article on the YRR. They seemed to joyfully accept what to me was clearĺy a second-class position. Apparently accepting this because of the intellectual system in Calvinism.

    I think it is a trade-off for having a husband like Jesus. He gets a submissive wife. Of course neither ideal is possible. A better idea is the Ephesians 5:21 mutuality, but that doesn’t move as much product.

  89. Gram3 wrote:

    Philip Miller wrote:
    Debbie-downer comments here
    Jesus was sometimes a real Debbie-downer, too. You are going to have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously. Oh, and all the cool kids were there won’t work, either.

    +1

  90. Janey wrote:

    “Most say that men should be the religious leaders in the marriage and family (79%)

    This stat is pretty weird, though. 80%??? And the same percent think women can be pastors? I don’t know what to make of that (except that I don’t like it).

  91. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Call me a Debbie Downer if you like. I

    I’m only a debbie downer about the bad stuff, like women not being considered fully human adults who are capable of leading, teaching, making their own decisions, leaving abusive husbands, etc.

    That tends to be what this site addresses. I’ll tell you all day long about how great it is to be in a denomination that treats women as full and complete people who are capable of doing all things and how much peace it brings me. All. Day.

  92. Pastor Chris wrote:

    I also expect everyone reading this knows that Baptist churches are autonomous. We cooperate voluntarily. I am not a Calvinist, but more and more in our denomination are. Few ordain women into ministry, but some do.

    Hi, and glad you jumped in a first timer here. I suspect any SBC church which ordained a female as a pastor would find itself kicked out of the local association pretty quickly and after that the state and then the Convention. In other words, I think Female Subordination is the third rail in the SBC according the BFM2K. I have had a bit of personal experience with raising questions on this particular issue, among others.

  93. scott hendrixson wrote:

    I know that racial and bias still exist, but I’m afraid that fighting for a person or group’s place at the table leaves us with a diverse table of people who may change the attitude toward diversity whole reinforcing other primary institutional rottenness. I think we are seeing this happen with the YRR crowd and their institutions.

    I agree. There are two overwhelmingly white churches I know quite well which organically but intentionally began drawing very diverse congregations as the populations around them began to change. It is quite amazing and wonderful. No fighting. No demands. Welcoming enrichment for all and much healthier for all, IMO.

  94. Max wrote:

    I’m not anti-Beth Moore, but do think she should step up and be counted on this continued subordination of women by Southern Baptists.

    I see Beth Moore and Lifeway as being in a partnership that neither is eager to disturb over such a petty issue as the subordination of over half of the SBC.

  95. Pastor Chris wrote:

    there is a biblical argument against women pastors and elders that I haven’t seen communicated here.

    Some TWW readers belong to churches that ordain women. Long ago, when I first wandered into such a church, the presence of women in the pulpit took a little getting used to–but it was so refreshing, so eye opening. If I ever move to another large church, I fully expect to find women among clergy.

  96. @ Gram3:
    I don’t know Beth Moore well enough to know what she’s doing. Maybe she’s trying to address the issue as sort of an inside man? She will just preach, and do her thing, and they accept her because she’s so successful.

    Maybe it makes some people say ‘ya’ll beth moore can preach. how can that be wrong for all women if she is so wonderful at it? Maybe we’re wrong about that whole man only thing’.

    If you see an issue, you can come at it from the outside or in. I think it takes both kinds. Maybe one day, Beth Moore will stand up and say something and people will actually listen. Maybe she’s waiting. Or maybe not.

  97. Friend wrote:

    Some TWW readers belong to churches that ordain women.

    *waves*

    I’ve heard all the arguments. I’ve seen it done both ways. This way is better.

  98. EV wrote:

    For what it is like to be Black and female in the Church, listen to the podcast – Truth’s Table. They did a joint podcast with Pass the Mic on March 28, 2017. Because these podcasts are made by and for Blacks, sometimes my husband and I find there are cultural/historical areas where we need to do research to understand some of the points.

    Can you please post a link?

    Thanks.

  99. Friend wrote:

    Some TWW readers belong to churches that ordain women.

    I belong to a group that has women ordained as deacons, priests and bishops. We are racially inclusive. We have gay couples with and without children who attend. And my particular parish also has an ordained female methodist elder on staff, though we are not methodists. The mother ship is not too happy with us just now. There are at least two sides to every issue.

  100. Gram3 wrote:

    I see Beth Moore and Lifeway as being in a partnership that neither is eager to disturb over such a petty issue as the subordination of over half of the SBC.

    And that ought to disturb thousands of Southern Baptist women who pay to attend Beth Moore conferences and simulcasts.

  101. K.D. wrote:

    A Black family was visiting looking for a church home. The changes behind the “Pine Curtain” of East Texas are slow, if at all.

    I believe change will come, because I believe Dr. King’s prophecy about people judged solely on the content of their character, across all boundaries of race, color and creed. And most importantly, in both directions across any of the divides.

  102. Thanks for the kind and courteous replies I have received. The inconsistencies by Lifeway pointed out are worth noting. I have never been to a Beth Moore conference but I understand that she begins by stating her submission to her husband and her pastor and that she takes no authority over the men in her audience as she teaches (1 Tim 2:12). That being said, I can’t explain the call to “silence,” i respect her theology as far as I know it

  103. Pastor Chris wrote:

    I have never been to a Beth Moore conference but I understand that she begins by stating her submission to her husband and her pastor and that she takes no authority over the men in her audience as she teaches (1 Tim 2:12).

    Thank you for your comments. I would appreciate if you could explain what it means to teach and take no authority?

    The Wartburg Watch actually asked this question regarding Beth Moore. “But, I would love this Bible teacher to define what in the world she means by having “authority” over a man. How do you speak with and without authority?”

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/08/16/the-enigma-of-beth-moore/

  104. Pastor Chris wrote:

    she takes no authority over the men in her audience as she teaches

    Matt Chandler, SBC Pastor & President Acts29, says “I preach to men.”

    Beth Moore can essentially say “I preach to women.”

    I guess there is a fine line between “preacher” and “teacher” in some religious circles, where a woman can teach but she can’t preach. Preach is defined “to deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.” Thus, is Beth Moore a preacher or a teacher when she delivers her religious message to women? I guess if men are in the audience, she would be a teacher. If not, she would a preacher. Is it OK for her to “preach” at a conference center, but not in a church?

    Personally, it matters not to me if a woman preaches the Gospel that saves to a mixed audience. The American church needs all the help it can get! Lord knows we have enough men in the pulpit who are not fulfilling the Great Commission (TWW writes about them all the time). At age 5, my daughter preached the Gospel to a plumber working on our kitchen sink! She is now married to a Southern Baptist pastor, “complementing” him with her gifts in ‘their’ ministry. She is free to speak (preach/teach) as the Lord leads.

    Beth, if you are listening into this “Do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” Preach it!

  105. Max wrote:

    Matt Chandler says “I preach to men

    Yeah, I thought I’d just find that quote so it doesn’t go down the memory hole forever:

    When I preach, I preach to men. That’s what I do. And if you’re a woman in here and that angers you, I apologize. The Scriptures very clearly say that men are the glory of God. And what that means is that if men will do what God has commanded them to do, if men will be who He has commanded them to be, then everything else will work well and where they fail, everything begins to unravel. Which is why we need grace and it’s why I preach I preach to men. With all that said, I think by far the most difficult command of God on humanity that exists in the Scriptures is the admonition for men to love their wives like Jesus Christ loves the church. Do you know why? Jesus Christ is sinless and yet reached out and reconciled His bride, the church. Which means He did nothing wrong, but He initiated reconciliation. It means when she did not respond to that reconciliation as He wanted, He let His life be taken from Him to make her right.

    http://www.thevillagechurch.net/media/sermons/transcripts/200805181100HVWC21ASAAA_MattChandler_LukePt17-ConvictionOfTheUnseen.pdf

    What.a.bunch.of.GARBAGE! As a single woman, this is a double slap in the face to me. I’m not only not a man, I’m not married to a man, which would apparently give me worth in his eyes as a woman.

    And I disagree with Matt Chandler, the hardest commandment of *Jesus* is to love your neighbor as yourself. Right now, I’m not loving Matt Chandler very much, because I keep asking, why does he see women as simply not worth the same as men?

  106. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    When I preach, I preach to men. That’s what I do.

    Yep, Chandler is a macho sort of guy … he’s a Man’s preacher dude. His VP sidekick at Acts29 and author of “The Dude’s Guide to Manhood”, Darrin Patrick, was also a man’s man preacher until he fell from ministry due to “pastoral misconduct” and a “historical pattern of sin.” Chandler was preceded at the helm of Acts29 by another dude-preaching pastor, Mark Driscoll, who also fell from ministry for various ministry transgressions. These dudes are something, aren’t they?!

    Chandler also told the world that he preaches to men in his interview with John Piper “Calvinism and Sexual Complementarity” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKEpVzHnUw0 In the interview, he says “our girls” (that’s what he calls female members of his church) like that kind of preachin’ – I guess those girls are filled to the brim with the beauty of complementarity! Reckon when the girls will get wise to the scheme and realize they can be free in Christ?

  107. @ Max:
    This is the kind of legalistic nonsense (conference center ok! Missionary ok! Real church? Not ok!) that comes when silly rules meet reality.

    Beth Moore doesn’t have a ‘church’. She just is. Matt chandler should be ashamed of his statement since he is supposed to be preaching to the whole church.

    I will read the article from years ago on Beth Moore. Now I’m kind of waiting for her to flip at some point and tell the men’s what’s what! *fingerscrossed*

  108. Lea wrote:

    Missionary ok!

    My cousin and his wife were Southern Baptist missionaries to South Africa for several years (before the IMB takeover by New Calvinists). She could preach, teach, and otherwise serve Christ however He led her on a distant field … but could not preach in an American pulpit. This hypocrisy is crying out against the SBC!

  109. Pastor Chris wrote:

    but I understand that she begins by stating her submission to her husband and her pastor and that she takes no authority over the men in her audience as she teaches (1 Tim 2:12).

    Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian challenges many of these so called biblical teachings. You may be interested in reading his challenges here:

    https://godswordtowomen.org/bilezikian.htm

    Of particular interest is that there is not one…repeat not one…scripture where husbands are told/commanded to have authority over their wives. In fact, the only place where the word authority is used in the context of marriage is in 1 Cor. 7 where both husband and wife have authority over one another.

    Also of interest is that many who teach a hierarchy in marriage (and the church as well) have ignored the context and the fact that Paul often confirms that he is writing in response to various erroneous teachings that have come to him via letters or messengers. He repeats the erroneous statement and corrects it.

    We are often guilty of selective literalism when interpreting scriptures and use literal interpretation when it supports the desired agenda.

  110. Lea wrote:

    And women are what again? Would love to hear the answer. Probably the glory of man.

    Every womann needs to wear vests to church that says “service animal”.

  111. Lea wrote:

    Beth Moore doesn’t have a ‘church’.

    Beth Moore is member of a non-denominational church, Bayou City Fellowship (BCF) in Houston Texas. Her son-in-law, Curtis Jones, is pastor there. While SBC’s LifeWay partners with her, she is not a Southern Baptist. I wonder if BCF is a New Calvinist work?

  112. @ Max:
    Which is another reason why women shouldn’t attend these churches! So, the Bible is limited to men, why should women bother reading most of it. Sick.

  113. Victorious wrote:

    We are often guilty of selective literalism when interpreting scriptures and use literal interpretation when it supports the desired agenda.

    While other religious sects do that, the New Calvinists are masters at eisegesis … taking text out of context to support reformed theology (e.g., their interpretation of Romans 9). The new reformation is an agenda-driven ministry … to Calvinize the American church. Of course they say they are “gospel”-driven … but gospel to them = Calvinism.

  114. Victorious wrote:

    He repeats the erroneous statement and corrects it.

    Yes!!

    I listened to a very interesting series where a man at church explained how Paul’s letters flowed (greetings, here’s some stuff that’s going well, let me address these issues you’re having, wish you well, love Paul) and they make so much more sense that way. It makes proof texting even more stupid. This is a letter! It has context! Ugh!!!

  115. @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:

    I often heard variances of that when I was in the SBC and like minded circles. Needless to say, I was constantly treated very poorly and I struggled with depression and social isolation from those teachings and all the negative experiences I kept having as a result of that ideology.

    Their sexism is not always so overt, however. It most often translates itself into day to day subtleties and systemic unspoken social psych ways that aren’t always visible on the surface and plays out like gaslighting and confusion to the receiver/woman when you are in the midst of it.

    I am still recovering and relearning what God’s intentions are for me as a human being, but also specifically as a woman. I am single, never married as of yet and that also, as you testify, has its specific messages you have to weed out and heal from if you used to be under it.

    Me trying to speak up and start dialogue about it was never received well and mostly ignored, which followed the same pattern that I much expected and wasn’t at all surprised. The SBC and similar circles are not close whatsoever to a place at having honest and self-reflective conversations about how they view and treat women in light of God and in their community.

    They preemptively won’t listen to you if it threatens or challenges what they have already decided. There’s too much money and status involved. It just isn’t going to happen any time soon in the next couple decades or so. But I hope I’m wrong.

    That all greatly helped in my process of leaving, alongside multiple things/concerns and issues in the SBC-TGC-T4G-Nine Marks world outside bit also intertwined with the sexism were leading me to that direction anyways as well.

    The correlation between the SBC and racism was also a major factor in my deciding to leave, seeing how intertwined it it is in not only their history, but their foundation as a group and how you can still spiritually “feel” it. The spirit of racism also closely associates and breathes with the same hyper-authoritarian and controlling spirit that keeps regurgitating in their midst. It’s all drawing from the same well and it’s not being honestly discussed. Anything they say or do with resolutions or “changes” comes across as mere behavior modification or brand marketing and posturing, something really hollow.

    Dee, thank you so much for this post. You may have no idea how much this helps people to see this publicly said online. You lay things out as they really are. I pray that black women who are struggling in the SBC or church in general find this. I am a white woman and would never pretend to understand how they feel in church and society, but I pray they feel comfort and keep using their voice – and especially not to rely on or mold themselves to the Gospel Industrial Complex to do so.

  116. okrapod wrote:

    The mother ship is not too happy with us just now. There are at least two sides to every issue.

    O indeed, I agree. It’s hard to find the right balance, to create and maintain a welcoming environment without sowing chaos or just abandoning valid traditions. (I was up most of the night, am not thinking too clearly, but wanted to acknowledge the problem your congregation is facing.)

  117. Lea wrote:

    I listened to a very interesting series where a man at church explained how Paul’s letters flowed (greetings, here’s some stuff that’s going well, let me address these issues you’re having, wish you well, love Paul) and they make so much more sense that way. It makes proof texting even more stupid. This is a letter! It has context! Ugh!!!

    Interesting that the same people who insist on subordination of women in any situation seem to get it right when they interpret the “slave to master” scriptures as cultural and not applicable today. Or even stranger, manage to relate those scriptures to employees to employers in the business world. As I said….”selective literalism”. And don’t try to enforce the men “lifting up holy hands” or “greet one another with a holy kiss” scriptures. LOL

  118. Max wrote:

    I guess those girls are filled to the brim with the beauty of complementarity! Reckon when the girls will get wise to the scheme and realize they can be free in Christ?

    As soon as those gurlz get over their fear of hellfire-brimstone-and-damnation for not following Paul’s non-negotiable “commands from the LORD”? Watch out!
    Chandler and all his dude-bros will really have reason to fear the primal power of women.

  119. Pastor Chris wrote:

    she begins by stating her submission to her husband and her pastor and that she takes no authority over the men in her audience

    I don’t think that a man in her place would have spiritual authority over men in the audience, either, despite the clobber verse Men-In-Authority use to demand submission to their authority. I think it is more of a throwaway disclaimer which makes her preaching kosher.

  120. Victorious wrote:

    We are often guilty of selective literalism when interpreting scriptures and use literal interpretation when it supports the desired agenda.

    Why do you think the drafters of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy disavowed the use of hyperbole (article 13) as a valid literary device in Scripture?

  121. I personally think the problem was the women in the clergy…I bet they would have done the same thing w the magazine if the women were all white or Hispanic pastors. I don’t think it was about race…just my opinion.

  122. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    why does he see women as simply not worth the same as men?

    Because he has been steeped in the Gospel of Piper and Grudem and Ware who are two very small men, and I am not speaking of their physical stature. I am speaking of their determination in the face of many calls to repentance to demean the Eternal Son in order to demean all women. This compulsion is a spiritual one, IMO, that is inexplicable except for deception designed to divide the body of Christ. What a brilliant deception it is. They do not see how they hate women even while they speak of loving women well. Brilliant ploy of the Enemy.

  123. Gram3 wrote:

    I think it is more of a throwaway disclaimer which makes her preaching kosher.

    Legalistic nonsense. Two clearly egalitarian men and women will voice check the box ‘complemtarian’ when asked but it may mean nothing in practice. Telling a woman she can ‘separate’ but not divorce a dangerous husband. Making a woman a ‘director’ and a man a ‘pastor’ on the programs.

  124. Muff Potter wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    We are often guilty of selective literalism when interpreting scriptures and use literal interpretation when it supports the desired agenda.

    Why do you think the drafters of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy disavowed the use of hyperbole (article 13) as a valid literary device in Scripture?

    This is where I note yet again that there is an entire book in the Bible that is basically all silly puns in Hebrew that we don’t get in English.

  125. Pastor Chris wrote:

    That being said, I can’t explain the call to “silence,”

    We need to study Paul’s method of speaking. He uses hyperbole and sporting events (shadow boxing, running the race, etc.) to make an analogy and correct understanding of scripture. We must also keep in mind that he is often responding to questions where erroneous teachings may have come from Idol worshipers, female worshipers, Gentile/Greek converts, etc. For example:

    1Cor. 14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 
    1Cor. 14:35  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 
    1Cor. 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 

    Paul is astounded at this assumption that women must keep silent and are not permitted to speak. Paul was familiar with the Talmud where women’s voices were considered shameful and sexually provocative. He clearly refutes that error and notes prophecy as a gift to be expressed in assemblies by both men and women.

    Read more about the Talmud’s views about women here:

    http://subversive1.blogspot.com/2009/08/women-in-ministry-part-1.html

  126. Pastor Chris wrote:

    That being said, I can’t explain the call to “silence,

    Wade Burleson, the pastor here on TWW’s E-Church who pastors a Baptist church in OK.,
    wrote a good article about the subject: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-woman-of-error-in-i-timothy-212.html

    The Apostle Paul wrote about one woman (singular in the Greek “the woman”) teaching one man (it was probably her husband) error. Paul wanted her to learn correctly first. The issue wasn’t her gender, the issue was error. Wade points out the same would be true if a man was in error. Be quiet and learn properly first.

    Some Bible translators changed Paul’s “the woman” to the plural “women”. That is incorrect and not what Paul meant.

  127. A problem is also framing the interpretation issue with false equivalancies and liberal vs. conservative and “you are for the gospel or against it” depending on if you think this or that.

    So it becomes that anyone who questions complementarian theology and philosophy is automatically a “liberal” and the ubdertone is that liberals are bad or they are “succumbing to culture” (see: weak, or not really Christian) or experientially/feeling their way to an interpretation and molding Scripture to that and not using rationale/logic, and so on. It implies there is an epistemic or character deficiency in the person or people coming to different conclusions and interpretations.

    The false equivalincies take place of dialoguing and being challenged by the actual interpretations themselves and further by the people whose experiences and rationale for their differing interpretations are well informed and thought out.

    It all works as thought stopping and minimizing the beauty of doing theology amongst a group of people and before God. And that includes the history of the church which non-complementarians also take seriously (which some complemntarians often use that thought stopper as well).

    Of course, all kinds of groups and people and ideologies since the history of time use false equivalincies and thought stopping tactics. But just applying it to this case here.

  128. Ugh I mistyped equivalence twice and always mistype something in my comments. I read them over quickly once and hit submit. 🙂

  129. Muff Potter wrote:

    As soon as those gurlz get over their fear of hellfire-brimstone-and-damnation for not following Paul’s non-negotiable “commands from the LORD”? Watch out!
    Chandler and all his dude-bros will really have reason to fear the primal power of women.

    Yep, this could very well be the Achilles heel of the New Calvinist movement … when women rise up en masse to declare “Wait just a minute here!” and start dragging their sorry husband/boyfriend dudes out of reform school.

  130. Some of the comments to the prior post by Wade Burleson are very thoughtful comments.

    I personally am not convinced that we know exactly what Paul was saying based on the mere use of singulars and plurals, since either a particular woman (singular) or a particular category (singular) of persons would both take the singular noun, and the singular definite article. And that would be true regardless of whether singulars or plural were used either before or after the particular statement in question.

    Example:

    First plurals: ‘Scrub nurses and surgeons have important roles to perform during surgery.”

    Now singulars: ‘However, It is not appropriate in the OR for the scrub nurse to try to tell the surgeon how to perform the procedure.’ Meaning: any OR, any scrub nurse, any surgeon and any procedure–regardless of the definite article ‘the’ and use of singular nouns.

    Now back to plurals; “But, one can anticipate a good outcome if they continue to perform their responsibilities well.’

    I say this because sometimes people may think and even imply that those who do not agree with a certain understanding of this passage are either cognitively challenged or else deceived and deceiving. Nope. I agree with one commenter who said that it would not be wise to base a whole doctrine on this one passage. Either way.

  131. mot wrote:

    Could it be they wish to be gods now and in the after-life?

    Then why don’t they go all the way and enter an FLDS compound? Or start their own?

  132. Christiane wrote:

    @ mot:
    looks like it, with the ESS business of subjugating women to men in ‘heaven’ (sounds more like hell to me)

    Depends on whether you’re the class/gender Holding the Whip or the one Feeling the Whip.

  133. okrapod wrote:

    while the LDS take the idea in one direction, they are not the only people who have, well, high expectations. It would not surprise me if there are somewhat similar ideas floating around in some protestant circles.

    Wonder if this is connected with ditching Resurrection and Olam-Ha-Ba for Disembodied Souls and Fluffy Cloud Heaven….

  134. TomkeinOK wrote:

    @ Christiane:
    To be upfront, when I see politicians say such things. I check their church affiliation. Most of the time they are Baptist. They were taught this in churich. As the old saying goes ‘God said it, I believe it, that settles it!’

    To which saying I mentally add “Al’lah’u Akbar!”

    Or filk the saying into “Trump Tweets It, I believe It, That settles It!” (After eight years of doing “Obamanation of Desolation” puns, it’s an opportunity for equal time.)

  135. Max wrote:

    His VP sidekick at Acts29 and author of “The Dude’s Guide to Manhood”, Darrin Patrick, was also a man’s man preacher until he fell from ministry due to “pastoral misconduct” and a “historical pattern of sin.”

    Which did he get caught in bed with? Live boy or dead woman?

  136. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    And women are what again? Would love to hear the answer. Probably the glory of man.

    Every womann needs to wear vests to church that says “service animal”.

    Remember the “pussy hat” demonstrations?
    That might be the SBC equivalent.
    It’d sure make the news (at least outside the Bible Belt).

  137. @ Philip Miller:

    For Philip, who might need to hear this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_rq7Z18_mg

    May the strong women of our country ‘be forever blessed’ 🙂
    And in the words of Sojourner Truth, this welcomed news:
    ” the women are coming up blessed by God and a few of the men are coming up with them”

    How’s them for words of encouragement, Philip?
    We aim to oblige. 🙂 Have a wonderful Sunday.

  138. Lea wrote:

    This is where I note yet again that there is an entire book in the Bible that is basically all silly puns in Hebrew that we don’t get in English.

    Amos?

  139. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Christiane wrote:

    @ mot:
    looks like it, with the ESS business of subjugating women to men in ‘heaven’ (sounds more like hell to me)

    Depends on whether you’re the class/gender Holding the Whip or the one Feeling the Whip.

    There has to be a better heaven than neo-Cal heaven. Our Lord wouldn’t do that to women, no. HE wouldn’t, even if they might, but they won’t get to call the shots in life beyond this Earth, no. Thank God. 🙂

  140. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    oh Headless, the man was photographed at an airport with a ‘rent boy’ …. they had been on a trip to Europe together.

    Rekers designed a ‘treatment’ for gay men which caused many of them harm, and then the world finds out he is, himself, a person with issues. Apparently his work did more harm than good, and he himself was conflicted and lived a ‘hidden’ double life until he was exposed. Sad business.
    http://images2.miaminewtimes.com/imager/george-rekers-and-lucien-waiting-for-the/u/original/6541999/rekersatmia.jpg

  141. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    This is where I note yet again that there is an entire book in the Bible that is basically all silly puns in Hebrew that we don’t get in English.

    Amos?

    I think that’s the one.

  142. okrapod wrote:

    I agree with one commenter who said that it would not be wise to base a whole doctrine on this one passage. Either way.

    Certainly, but that doesn’t stop the Complementarians who have ad hoc methods of interpretation which switch from verse to verse and *within a single epistle* which has the same author and audience. So all women are literally forbidden to teach all men *but* women will *not* literally be saved through childbirth. It is this sort of clownish and obvious manipulation of the text which I winsomely pointed out to the Calvinista pups who later dis-affirmed my Christian testimony and keyed me out of the Kingdom though I was born again way before they were born the first time. They simply make stuff up to reach their pre-determined conclusions and when someone dares to point out the obvious, they harden themselves.

  143. Gram3 wrote:

    but* women will *not* literally be saved through childbirth

    The biblical translators messed that one up too and the text refers too a noun the Childbearing (referring to salvation through Jesus Christ and His birth). Translators changed it a verb, “childbearing” for many English Bibles.

  144. Gram3 wrote:

    They simply make stuff up to reach their pre-determined conclusions and when someone dares to point out the obvious, they harden themselves.

    They obviously do not take scripture seriously as they add or delete words and phrases as suits their man made doctrine.

  145. @ Gram3:

    You sound like you have sinned against the foundational doctrine of the much of the reformation: sola scriptura. You have dragged reason into the picture, worshipped at the shrine of knowledge by studying, and you have contaminated the virginal minds of the naive and the obstinate by defying indoctrination and spreading your vile rebellion actually within the church.

    To this I can only say one thing: ‘Right on, Sister’!!

  146. mot wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    They simply make stuff up to reach their pre-determined conclusions and when someone dares to point out the obvious, they harden themselves.

    They obviously do not take scripture seriously as they add or delete words and phrases as suits their man made doctrine.

    In other words they used innerancy as a Trojan Horse.

  147. emily honey wrote:

    So it becomes that anyone who questions complementarian theology and philosophy is automatically a “liberal”

    Yes, that’s what happened in SBC during the Conservative (=Calvinist) Resurgence. The denomination was purged of those nasty liberals and moderates who loved the Lord, but didn’t agree with fundamentalist legalism.

  148. mot wrote:

    In other words they used innerancy as a Trojan Horse.

    Yes, it was a maneuver to whittle away a big chunk of “whosoever will” Baptists who might see through the Calvinist Resurgence. Don’t you just love theo-politics?!

  149. Lea wrote:

    Gen. 3:12)

    Adam had a choice just as Eve had a choice. They twist the scriptures as it suits their agenda.

  150. Lea wrote:

    Unrelated, but new CBMW article (they are so obsessed with transgender, like that has anything to do with the relationship between man and woman in marriage, ugh)

    Because Transgender(TM) is the new Homosexuality(TM) and Fred Phelps’ only mistake was being too direct & obvious.

    A mass movement can do without a god, but must have a Devil. And Witches to be smelled out.

  151. Christiane wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    oh Headless, the man was photographed at an airport with a ‘rent boy’ …. they had been on a trip to Europe together.

    At least Rekers bowed out gracefully when he got caught.
    Resigned quietly and stayed out of the public eye ever since.
    Contrast that with the likes of Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jim Bakker, arrogantly starting their new High Profile Ministries — “TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED! GOD SAITH!”

  152. Velour wrote:

    The Apostle Paul wrote about one woman (singular in the Greek “the woman”) teaching one man (it was probably her husband) error. Paul wanted her to learn correctly first. The issue wasn’t her gender, the issue was error. Wade points out the same would be true if a man was in error. Be quiet and learn properly first.

    In Ephesus, which was unique in the Hellenistic world for being the home of a FEMALE-Supremacist cult.

  153. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Because Transgender(TM) is the new Homosexuality(TM)

    And since I am neither, it has nothing to do with me.

    They have some sort of syllogism that says because other people are doing this other stuff, women have to submit, and stay at home, and yada yada yada.

    Annoying. But I wanted to point out the blatant lie because they couldn’t stand to just say the truth if it showed ‘men’ in a bad light at all.

  154. Lea wrote:

    EVE didn’t do any blaming, guys! LIARS.

    Right…in fact, she exposed Satan as the deceiver…the very same descriptor noted in Rev. 12:9. Satan’s deception of Eve is the cause of God’s curse on him.

    The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this….” Gen 3:14 

  155. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    @ Victorious:
    Adam lied. Eve told the truth. Therefore, husbands must be the authorities over and spiritual leaders of wives.

    It makes every bit as much as sense as the created order argument.

    Adam was created after the animals, so he’s in charge.

    Even was created after Adam, so Adam’s in charge.

    Huh?

  156. Pastor Chris wrote:

    I also expect everyone reading this knows that Baptist churches are autonomous. We cooperate voluntarily. I am not a Calvinist, but more and more in our denomination are. Few ordain women into ministry, but some do.

    You seem to assume the SBC will stay that way. I don’t think so. The basis of New Calvinism is hierarchy authoritarianism. They have taken over churches by force who were autonomous, removed that autonomy from the congregation, and disciplined anyone who tried to leave. They have done the same with NAMB and IMB. I have no doubt they will eventually try to make churches fall under a hierarchy and remove autonomy as a tenent of the SBC. They already removed soul competency and priesthood of the believers from the BFM, which undergirded the idea of autonomy.

    Also, churches have been removed from the SBC for ordaining women, so they are not autonomous on that decision. I think more and more autonomy is a myth in the SBC.

  157. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    The Apostle Paul wrote about one woman (singular in the Greek “the woman”) teaching one man (it was probably her husband) error. Paul wanted her to learn correctly first. The issue wasn’t her gender, the issue was error. Wade points out the same would be true if a man was in error. Be quiet and learn properly first.
    In Ephesus, which was unique in the Hellenistic world for being the home of a FEMALE-Supremacist cult.

    Exactly, H.U.G.

  158. ishy wrote:

    You seem to assume the SBC will stay that way. I don’t think so. The basis of New Calvinism is hierarchy authoritarianism.

    AKA POWER.

    “The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering upon the Powerless.”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, Nineteen Eighty-Four

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
    — Lord Voldemort

  159. Lea wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Because Transgender(TM) is the new Homosexuality(TM)

    And since I am neither, it has nothing to do with me.

    But it has EVERYTHING to do with the Poor Widdle Manly-Man’s Ego (and the two dangly bits that makes him a Man).

    Because Trans’ existence whispers to the hindbrain “It IS possible to cease to be a Man…”

    And Homo’s existence whispers “A Stronger, More Manly Man than you could use you like you use a woman.”

  160. ishy wrote:

    Also, churches have been removed from the SBC for ordaining women, so they are not autonomous on that decision. I think more and more autonomy is a myth in the SBC.

    Pastor Chris name me even 1 SBC church that is led by a woman Pastor. Autonomous only in certain aspects is the best way to describe the SBC.

  161. mot wrote:

    Pastor Chris name me even 1 SBC church that is led by a woman Pastor. Autonomous only in certain aspects is the best way to describe the SBC.

    Autonomous as long as you (generic) agree with the SBC leaders. All planter churches, IMB and NAMB, have to accept and agree with the BFM 2000.

  162. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    mot wrote:

    Pastor Chris name me even 1 SBC church that is led by a woman Pastor. Autonomous only in certain aspects is the best way to describe the SBC.

    Autonomous as long as you (generic) agree with the SBC leaders. All planter churches, IMB and NAMB, have to accept and agree with the BFM 2000.

    You have to assign your allegiance to them and not Jesus Christ IMO. You have to walk lock step.

  163. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    Autonomous as long as you (generic) agree with the SBC leaders. All planter churches, IMB and NAMB, have to accept and agree with the BFM 2000.

    They want to make sure you are not for the Women.

  164. okrapod wrote:

    You sound like you have sinned against the foundational doctrine of the much of the reformation: sola scriptura.

    As I’ve said, I’m one of the cranky inerrantists here, and, as a matter of fact, Sola is one of the things Gramp3 and I told the Calvinista pups they were violating. But that did not matter because Female Subordinationism is an essential part of their false gospel and their mentor-idols have indoctrinated them well. If they renounced their “faith” after critically examining the logical fallacies and textual problems and blatant eisegesis in Danvers and RBMW, where would they be? They would be cast out as heretics, and their false identities would be lost. That is why I think this movement will have to burn itself out in the next generation in a somewhat catastrophic way, because these guys have removed all means of corrective feedback from their system.

  165. Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

    mot wrote:
    Pastor Chris name me even 1 SBC church that is led by a woman Pastor. Autonomous only in certain aspects is the best way to describe the SBC.

    Autonomous as long as you (generic) agree with the SBC leaders. All planter churches, IMB and NAMB, have to accept and agree with the BFM 2000.

    Like Calvary Chapel — Autonomous as long as it’s to their advantage to be autonomous, one monolith in lockstep when it’s to their advantage to be one single monolith.

    Disperse to Defend, Concentrate to Attack.

  166. mot wrote:

    In other words they used innerancy as a Trojan Horse.

    I don’t know if that was the case at the beginning, but it seems that it has turned out that the issue of inerrancy was turned into a tool to bring in authoritarianism and Calvinism and hard female subordinationism. It is hard to deny the fruit.

  167. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t know if that was the case at the beginning, but it seems that it has turned out that the issue of inerrancy was turned into a tool to bring in authoritarianism and Calvinism and hard female subordinationism. It is hard to deny the fruit.

    IMO they use a take no prisoners approach and it is mighty tough to try to openly oppose them and especially if you support Women in the Ministry.

  168. Gram3 wrote:

    these guys have removed all means of corrective feedback from their system.

    Yep. The only one left is money.

    Starve the beast.

  169. Gram3 wrote:

    As I’ve said, I’m one of the cranky inerrantists here, and, as a matter of fact, Sola is one of the things Gramp3 and I told the Calvinista pups they were violating.

    It is kinda fun to say a YRR that he doesn’t really believe in Sola Scriptura when he is quoting John Piper as gospel. The last time I said that to someone it really confused him. It doesn’t occur to them that they conflict. They are commanded to believe and respout what their “scholars” tell them and not to think about it.

  170. Lea wrote:

    It makes every bit as much as sense as the created order argument.

    If women are inferior to men because Eve was made from Adam, then men are inferior dirt because Adam was made from dirt. Their logic is absurd.

  171. Ken F wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    It makes every bit as much as sense as the created order argument.
    If women are inferior to men because Eve was made from Adam, then men are inferior dirt because Adam was made from dirt. Their logic is absurd.

    Word.

  172. David C wrote:

    Ken F wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    It makes every bit as much as sense as the created order argument.
    If women are inferior to men because Eve was made from Adam, then men are inferior dirt because Adam was made from dirt. Their logic is absurd.

    Word.

    ‘Absurd’ is a good word for any earthly ‘human’ logic that attempts to bring our human light to reveal the Immortal One who dwells in unapproachable light.

    Our Lord was fully divine and fully human. Only He was able to reveal God to us most fully. But He was belittled by male headship neo-Cals in their attempt to raise themselves to glorious new heights worthy of the obeisance of women.

    The absurdity of this is on a scale greater than the ‘golden calf’ incident. I would call neo-Cal male idol worship ‘golden bull’.

  173. Ken F wrote:

    If women are inferior to men because Eve was made from Adam, then men are inferior dirt because Adam was made from dirt. Their logic is absurd.

    But reminiscent of the arguments of 19th Century Scientific Racism trying to prove that “The White Race” (narrowly defined as “Anglo-Saxon”) was More Evolved than any other. (During this time, Evolution had the baggage of Linear Upward Progress, which was why Darwin himself didn’t like the term. As Chesterton put it, “The Victorians thought history ended well because it ended with the Victorians.”)

    According to Gould, the wildest example of this was one theory that Neoteny (retaining juvenile characteristics into adulthood) was the sign of Most Evolved/Superior. All was well and good until it was discovered that East Asians are more neotenous than Europeans. (Whoops!) Only one of these scientists took this discovery to its logical conclusion — since less-evolved races are doomed to extinction (another fallacy of Linear Upward Progress), the “White” Race was doomed to extinction and the future was with the “Yellow” Race. Every other scientist immediately modified their theory, claiming that Asians were TOO neotenous and thus less-evolved/inferior.

  174. ishy wrote:

    It is kinda fun to say a YRR that he doesn’t really believe in Sola Scriptura when he is quoting John Piper as gospel.

    I had my NASB with me, and said, “Show me where it says that females were created to be subordinate to males.” It will shock no one at TWW to learn that Calvinista Pup 1 and Pup 2 did not open a Bible–even an ESV–but merely recited CBMW talking points. So I was not impressed that they are particularly conservative or particularly concerned about Biblical accuracy or inerrancy or Sola Scriptura or much of anything beyond parroting the Party Line. I say that with sorrow for what has happened to these young men and a church which has become cult-like.

  175. Gram3 wrote:

    anything beyond parroting the Party Line

    These young men are only following what they have been ordered to parrot. How sad.

  176. Gram3 wrote:

    Biblical accuracy

    Eve and Adam blamed each other! Even though that’s not in the text at all! Because the truth makes Adam look kind of bad!

    *eyeroll*

  177. Gram3 wrote:

    So I was not impressed that they are particularly conservative or particularly concerned about Biblical accuracy or inerrancy or Sola Scriptura or much of anything beyond parroting the Party Line.

    The rallying cry of the New Calvinists seems to be “Nonne Scriptura!” They won’t admit to it, but it is how they practice their faith when it comes to the major points.

  178. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Every other scientist immediately modified their theory, claiming that Asians were TOO neotenous and thus less-evolved/inferior.

    Those pesky facts. Just think how much progress we could make if we did not have to be constrained by facts.

    “Gravity: It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!”

  179. Lea wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    these guys have removed all means of corrective feedback from their system.

    Yep. The only one left is money.
    Starve the beast.

    But…
    “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
    — P.T.Barnum

  180. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Gram3 wrote:
    these guys have removed all means of corrective feedback from their system.
    Yep. The only one left is money.
    Starve the beast.
    But…
    “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
    — P.T.Barnum

    Did you ever see George C Scott in, The Flim, Flan Man ?
    Reminds me that some of these people bought in to get something out of it.

  181. Sigh, Galatians 3:28 is flying over these false teachers’ heads, not so? Calvinists destroy this verse beyond recognition because it dares mention “female.” Tell me, is there a different Gospel for men than there is for us women folk? No.
    Chandler is a joke, as is his entire belief system. What a weird little boy he is; he reminds me of a dog doing everything to please his human master…everything except telling the truth.

    Women and men have the same access to God and His riches; we have the same responsibility when it comes to spreading the Good News. Truly, anyone who believes that men are “higher” or more important than women in the eyes of God is simply of a cult. Easy and simple as that. Connect the dots; it’s easy.

  182. To clarify re Anne Graham Lotz:

    I’m currently reading her book Pursuing More of Jesus.

    In the early pages she is very clear she had no problem with women’s ordination UNTIL she was challenged by the men turning their backs. At that point, after tremendous searching the Scripture, she concluded she is free to give the gospel to anyone BUT is FORBIDDEN by God from seeking ordination or being a senior pastor. She battled out in her spirit the issue of her revivals, and believes that she must aim them at women but allow the men who want to attend to come as long as they are not her focus.

  183. @ linda:

    I believe Anne Graham Lotz has indicated in the past that while God has not called her to the pastorate, she doesn’t have a problem with women serving as pastors. Here is an excerpt from one article where this topic was discussed:

    https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2008/09/17/jesus-calls-women-to-serve-and/4015

    "I do not believe God has called me to be ordained, but I know many women who believe He has called them. Some of these women pastor in countries where the male leadership has been decimated by persecution and imprisonment, and out of necessity they have stepped up to fill the void.

    When I attended the International Congress on World Evangelism in Amsterdam, 2000, I remember turning to greet the people seated behind me in the Rai Center. I discovered that the entire row was filled with women who pastored in mainland China. No one challenged their right to serve God. Instead, they were applauded.

    So whether the sphere of service is China, Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, South America, or North America including the United States, let it be known that Jesus Himself is the reason that I, and many of my church sisters, are in ministry. For those who have a problem with us, they need to take it up with Him."

  184. Boston Lady wrote:

    Women and men have the same access to God and His riches; we have the same responsibility when it comes to spreading the Good News. Truly, anyone who believes that men are “higher” or more important than women in the eyes of God is simply of a cult. Easy and simple as that. Connect the dots; it’s easy.

    It never has been complicated about who God uses to share the Good News. These men have distorted the word of God IMO.

  185. mot wrote:

    Truly, anyone who believes that men are “higher” or more important than women in the eyes of God is simply of a cult.

    I wonder if such people understand that women are also made ‘in the image of God’ and are each also granted a soul directly from God Himself? There is no basis for any person to disrespect the dignity of any other person for any reason, because that dignity is not based on any other characteristics than the dignity of being a person made in God’s image. And if people honor one another, no distinction can be made that overlooks or over rides this most important of all human qualities.

  186. linda wrote:

    She battled out in her spirit the issue of her revivals, and believes that she must aim them at women but allow the men who want to attend to come as long as they are not her focus.

    And to the men who are wise enough to attend one of Anne Graham Lotz’s meetings, they will find anointed teaching (preaching) from the heart of God which is not gender-flavored. God is using her for such a time as this to prepare the Church (women, men and children) for the days ahead. If a man will humble himself to be taught by a woman, he might learn something.

  187. Max wrote:

    . If a man will humble himself to be taught by a woman, he might learn something.

    I think Our Lord Himself had this in mind ….

    “Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus in His resurrection and the first person sent to tell others of the resurrected Jesus. In this sense she is the first “apostle of the Gospel of the resurrection,” not as one having authority, but as the first witness to Jesus risen from the dead and the first person sent (which is what “apostle” means) to tell others of the good news of His resurrection.”

  188. Christiane wrote:

    If a man will humble himself to be taught by a woman, he might learn something.

    I think Our Lord Himself had this in mind ….

    Mary Magdalene was the first person to see Jesus in His resurrection and the first person sent to tell others of the resurrected Jesus.

    Yes, but the boys still ran to the tomb to make sure themselves! When they went back to the house, Mary stood outside the empty tomb crying. Jesus appeared to her and told her to go tell the disciples that He had risen – think about it, a woman was the first person commissioned by the Lord to preach the good news to men! (John 20)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *