Southern Baptists have done it again! Every year they manage to alienate someone in connection with their annual convention and foment a controversy in the religious community. The incredible thing is that they have brought all their current woes upon themselves just by affirming what the Bible teaches.
First, they came to the bodacious conclusion that homosexuality was wrong, a fact which surprised no student of the Scriptures but which shocked a society trying its best to follow the lead of the entertainment media. Then they had the audacity to say that wives were to be in subjection to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24), which caused feminists to “roar.” Now they have drafted a statement in which they say that they will no longer ordain women as “pastors.” [It is a popular misconception in denominations that preachers are to be called pastors even though the two are never synonymous in the Scriptures (see “Why I Am Not a Pastor”).]
The point is, however, that they have finally come around to the Biblical truth that women are not granted roles of public leadership (see “The Role of Women in the Church”). Needless to say, all the feminists and their politically correct entourage have put on their war paint and have begun to attack already.
Who knows what the Baptists will affirm in future conventions? No doubt they could cause a controversy by affirming that Matthew 19:9 is true or that God punishes sin. And it would become a news item! Where else can a controversy erupt when people simply stand on what the Bible has always taught? As Yakoff Smirnoff would say, “What a country!”
According to a May 19th story in The Dallas Morning News, the new prohibition on women “pastors” is not yet in effect, but it will be presented at their annual convention on June 13-14th (where the resolutions passed this week). Dr. Paige Patterson explained; The Baptist Faith and Message statement is, above all else, a statement of that which is representative of most Southern Baptist thinking” (23A). Oddly enough, “the Faith and Message is not binding on individuals or churches,” although congregations can reject hiring a man if he does not believe these precepts (23A).
Actually, the Baptists have several recommendations for this year. Below in italics are the proposed changes with a few comments concerning each one (from page 26A of the same article already referenced). The Southern Baptists wish to declare that:
“the baptism of the Holy Spirit takes place at the moment a person accepts Christ–a rejection of some charismatic theology.” Are they equating “receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit” with “Holy Spirit baptism” (Acts 2:38)? Such cannot be, since baptism has nothing to do with salvation in their theology. Also, if they must tell their members when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit instead of their feeling or sensing it, would that not make salvation a better-told-than-felt experience? Hmm. This declaration may eventually cause more problems than the one currently receiving all the publicity. Charismatic Baptists will reject this notion on the basis of their (and their friends’) experiences. “salvation depends entirely on belief in Jesus.” If a person can be saved by “faith only,” then repenting of sins has nothing to do with salvation (Luke 13:3). Baptism also becomes irrelevant (1 Peter 3:21). And Peter’s answer to the multitudes on Pentecost, which combines repentance and baptism, becomes gibberish (Acts 2:38). None of these facts, however, ever disturbs Baptist theology.
“believers have a duty to ‘win the lost’ of all nations.” Why? Baptist theology is based on Calvinism, which asserts the false doctrine of “unconditional election.” If all individuals have been appointed to salvation from eternity (NO MATTER WHAT), then why should anyone be evangelistic and win the lost? God will save them REGARDLESS of what any person does, according to Calvinist theology. Baptists may as well stay home and rent a couple of videos and spend the money they would have given to “missions” on a bigger television screen.
“Christians oppose racism and ‘all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality and pornography.'” This one is certainly Biblical; surprisingly, it did not make the headlines.
“gender–the separateness of male and female–is ‘part of the goodness of God’s creation.'” This too is not news and is just a conclusion drawn from Genesis 1-2.
The Southern Baptists have a few dozen women “pastors” who would be allowed continue their works. While this is undoubtedly a gracious concession, it does bring to mind the question, “If it is wrong, according to the Scriptures, for women to ‘pastor’ churches, then shouldn’t those doing so ‘repent’ and cease doing that which is Biblically wrong?”
Society has made this issue one of culture. The controversy has not been decided theologically or as a matter of correct interpretation of the Scriptures. Certain leaders of our culture, anointed by the news media, have determined that women may exercise authority over men in religion. To them it does not matter what the Bible says; as in so many other things, all that matters is, “What saith our cultural icons?”
Since the Bible reveals clearly the doctrine of Christ on the role of women in the church, the only way to negate the teaching is to:
a. attack the one who upholds the truth.
b. attack Paul as either a woman-hater or uninspired.
c. attack the Scriptures in general (in which case male or female leadership becomes irrelevant). If the Bible is not inspired, none of its teachings can be regarded as authoritative, and no one need obey anything it says. Examples of each of these follow.
Wayne Coats wrote of the personal attacks even before this particular story made headlines. In the March 12th Newsletter from the Watauga Church of Christ, there appeared an article by brother Coats entitled “The Dilemma of the Denominational World.” He explains that the local congregation of which he is a member sends out 7,000 flyers each month into the community. One month the flyer concerned “women’s roles in religion, upholding the truth that God does not allow women preachers, etc.”
One reply was received from an individual who managed to incorporate two of the three usual dodges. The person acknowledged that the Bible was written by inspired men but then also claimed that “many of their own ideas were added–all the culture of the times.” Obviously, the person wants to have it both ways, but such a view hopelessly contradicts itself. If the Bible is inspired, its teachings do not reflect the culture of the day (though such customs may be incidental to various texts). If Bible doctrine consists of the culture insights of the time, then it cannot be inspired of God (unless the two coincide).
The Bible is either of God or of men. To suggest it is a mixture of both–with no means of determining which is which–is to invite criticism of any doctrine our popular culture currently rejects and to rob it of its effectiveness. Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Act 7:22), but the teachings he recorded came from God. So it is with all the writers of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21).
This same individual also informed brother Coats: “You are too ignorant and closed minded. Pray for enlightenment.” What does this suggestion amount to? Is brother Coats supposed to keep praying until he receives a special revelation from Heaven, saying: “I really didn’t mean what I said in 1 Timothy 2:12”?
Lain Teel from Waco got it right (except for the “pastors” part) in a letter to the editor of The Dallas Morning News (which they published on May 29th). 1 Timothy 2:12 was quoted and followed by these words:
I don’t claim to understand that, but I still don’t completely understand electricity, either. I just know if I violate its principles, it won’t work right, and it may even shock me….
The women pastors issue is just a diversion, a minor issue, intended as a further attack on the inerrancy of Scripture and its effectiveness in building a world view that will sustain us in all matters of our existence (28A).
Society does not agree with the Scriptures on the role of women, homosexuality, and a number of other issues. The question is, “Do Christians want to abide by the Bible–or by what men (and feminists) say?”
On May 22nd one of our families called to inform me that there was a discussion on this topic on a radio talk show. Unfortunately, I caught only about the last ten minutes, but it was enough to get the gist of what had occurred. Many of the opinions voiced were nothing more than what brother Coats would call “fermented ignorance.” I inferred that someone was sitting in for the usual host, and his name was Bob Ray or Ray Bob or Rob Bob–something along those lines.
The first caller said to stop him if he was wrong, but the host just kept agreeing with him. The following is a paraphrase of the conversation with brief comments in brackets: “The Bible was written in five different versions, right?” [Do you have any clue as to what you are talking about?] “And it was written down 60 years after Jesus died, right?” [No, Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written around 30 years after Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Only John’s was a little later, but since they were inspired of the Holy Spirit, it really doesn’t matter if it was 5 or 50 years.] “And then these teachings are from a guy who spoke in parables.” [Yes, Jesus often spoke in parables, but He also made some clear statements, such as: “Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Also, the parables are explained so that we can understand them.]
The next caller affirmed, “You can’t judge who’s called to preach. How would you like to face God on the judgment and have Him tell you, ‘I called her to preach, but you told her she couldn’t’?” [Why would God call a woman to do that which He specifically forbids her to do?]
Julie in Frisco dared to speak up for the Scriptures. Although she used the “pastor” terminology, she quoted 1 Timothy 2:12. The host’s immediate response was, “But that’s what Paul said. He also said that it would be better for men not to get married.”
This is precisely the assault upon the Scriptures that many people make. Since Paul wrote the words that many despise, his credibility must be undermined. How can this charge be answered?
First, it should be noted that, when Paul gave his advice, he noted that it was not a commandment of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:25-36). He states clearly that it is a matter of judgment.
Second, when Paul gave his advice, he made clear that no one sinned by not following it (1 Cor. 7:36). Neither one of these cautions is found in 1 Timothy 2. In fact, in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul says these things constitute correct behavior in the church. Men are designated for the position of leadership (1 Tim. 2:8).
Third, Paul said it as eloquently to the Corinthians as it could be expressed, and it needs to be repeated today: “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). The problem with Jim Bob or Ray Jay is that he fails to admit this fact. He wants to discount a clear Bible teaching because he does not agree with it. If Peter or John had taught it, he would likewise reject it. But to reject any Bible doctrine, which is plainly set forth, reveals a lack of submission and humility. He could not wait to get this woman off the phone.
The final caller divulged the following information. “I grew up Church of Christ. I left because they thought they were the only people going to heaven.” Then he made some point about accepting woman “pastors.”
It is unfortunate that when he was growing up that no one ever taught him that the Church of Christ is not a religious denomination. When people say, “I’m a Church of Christ,” they are speaking in denominational terms. It is appropriate to say, “I’m a member of the church of Christ” (or the Lord’s body or the church you read about in the New Testament). Neither are we Church of Christ Christians: we are Christians. The world and various denominations rejoice in subtle admissions that, despite our protests to the contrary, we really do believe we are a denomination (unauthorized, as they are). Let heretics use this terminology; faithful brethren need to use Biblical terminology.
I (and probably you) have never heard any preacher say, “We are the only ones going to heaven.” People draw that conclusion about us. Why? They conclude that because we teach what the New Testament teaches. We have invented no doctrine of our own; we simply stand by what God has revealed. It was Paul (not we) who said that there is one Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Now if there is but one legitimate Gospel, then those who obey it will be saved and those who reject it will be lost. Anyone ought to agree with that principle, regardless of what the one Gospel is (because it is a logical deduction).
We believe and teach the same Gospel that Jesus introduced (Mark 16:16) and that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). It is not our fault if various religious groups (such as the Southern Baptists) have removed baptism from God’s means of salvation. But Truth is Truth. If they are right, we are condemned; if we are right, then they are yet outside the body of Christ–and lost.
Are we the only ones going to heaven? The Bible teaches that only those who trust AND obey are going to heaven (Heb. 5:8-9). It is not our task to pronounce judgment upon others; it is our responsibility to teach the Truth and encourage all to obey it. Each individual will be held accountable for his own conclusions.