Monday, January 22, 2007

Should our Seminaries be like the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond?

Once again we shall tackle the issues that face the SBC. And once again we shall pursue truth, wherever it leads. It appears that the latest ploy in broadening our SBC tent is to cause our seminaries to be more like the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond. Allow me to explain.

None of our seminaries have women teaching Biblical Studies, Theological Studies or Pastoral Ministry (the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond has women doing so). It appears that our seminaries have a rationale for such. The BFM2000 states: “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Apparently, our seminaries believe that if the office of the pastor is limited to men, then those who teach men how to pastor should be men. Further, there appears to be an assumption that Biblical and Theological Studies are a vital part of pastoral training.

Since the CBF has no statement of gender qualification concerning the office of the pastor it is very reasonable that women would teach Biblical Studies and Pastoral Ministries; which is what we find at BTSR.

I say, “let the CBF teach as they so desire, but please don’t ask our SBC to buy into CBF policies.” It appears that is exactly what some bloggers would have us do. I stated, long ago, the uproar in the SBC has more to do with broadening the tent, than some imagined narrowing that is supposedly taking place. Surely, the latest blog frenzy has demonstrated the validity of my statement.

I am grateful for the leadership of all six of our seminary Presidents in this area.

Why one President was singled out, when his actions are in step with the other five, is a question only those who singled him out can answer. But to a bystander, it certainly appears far more political than theological.

Some have valiantly argued that Dr. Patterson’s view, that a woman should not teach a man the Scriptures in the local church, was the genesis for not recommending tenure to a very qualified Hebrew Scholar. However, their efforts in maligning him in such a way flies directly in the face of the clear statement which Dr. Klouda herself claims Dr. Patterson shared with her: “He essentially said that his perspective and understanding in this regard was that in the teaching role in the school of theology, where we’re training pastors, those teachers should also be qualified to be pastors. Therefore, those teachers should be men,”

In other words, he felt men should teach men about pastoring and Biblical Studies is a large part of pastoral training.

Godly Southern Baptists certainly disagree on numerous issues, and women teaching men the Scriptures in the local church is one of those issues. However, for me, this issue is not essential to who we are as SB (BFM). Perhaps that is why the BFM2000 committee did not choose to make a statement either way (for or against women teaching men in the local church) and yet they did make a statement excluding women pastors. (By the way, it goes without saying that women sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with lost persons is not the same as women teaching men the Scriptures in the local church).

Our seminaries (all 6 of them) apparently take the statement excluding women pastors and apply it to those who teach pastors how to pastor. This appears to be the root of the action at SWBTS, not an individual’s belief concerning women teaching men in the local church.

This also explains why our seminaries are different than BTSR in this area, for the seminary in Richmond has no problem with women pastors. Perhaps, some of my blogging brothers believe women can teach men how to be pastors without compromising the integrity of the BFM2000…however, when they continually find themselves on the same side of issues as the CBF, one wonders how broad they want our tent to be.




While I feel women teaching men in the church is not an essential doctrinal issue, I will gladly share my perspective. I confess I find myself in concert with John Calvin and John Gill on this issue (two of my favorite commentators). I further confess that I do not believe that functional submission lessens one’s essence, for Christ submitted Himself to the Father and yet maintained His essential equality.

Let me share, up front, that there are numerous things I wish God had not stated (a confession of both the limitation of the human mind as well as the rebellion of the human will). And yet, when God gave His Word He did not ask my opinion or approval. His Word stands no matter what I think.

Personally, I think women usually study and teach better than men. But that has no bearing on what Scripture says. Further, I think women are stronger than men in many, if not most, ways. I also believe men and women were created equal in essence (Genesis 1:27; Galatians 3:28). Further, I think the main problem in most churches is not that women desire to teach men, but rather that there are few Godly men to be found. In fact, I have found that most problems in marriages and in churches have more to do with men not fulfilling their roles of loving their wives and leading their families than women usurping anything.

Nevertheless, I believe Scripture teaches women are to submit themselves to their husbands in their functional role within marriage (Ephesians 5:22-35) and I further believe Paul extends women’s functional submission, established at creation, to exclude them from teaching men in the local church. This is the clear reading of 1 Timothy 2:12.

In fact, I think one will be hard-pressed to find a conservative Scholar BEFORE the modern era of women’s rights who interprets 1 Timothy 2:12 in any other way. Surely, modern preachers and 20th century scholars who desire to be more in sync with political correctness than Scriptural fidelity will gladly submit Scripture to societal norms. Further, many well-meaning preachers may have unknowingly submitted to their own enculturation. But, it is telling that conservative Biblical scholars before the 20th century seem to be in agreement that 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids women from teaching men in the local church. Allow me to quote from both John Calvin and John Gill (John Calvin’s genius is well known and I don’t think I can improve on Wade Burleson’s commendation of John Gill’s Scriptural genius).

“Ver. 11. Let the woman learn in silence,.... The apostle goes on to give some other instructions to women, how they should behave themselves in public worship, in the church of God; he would have them be learners and not teachers, sit and hear, and learn more of Christ, and of the truth of the Gospel, and to maintain good works; and he would have them learn in silence, and not offer to rise and speak, under a pretence of having a word from the Lord, or of being under an impulse of the Spirit of the Lord, as some frantic women have done; and if they should meet with anything, under the ministry of the word, they did not understand, or they had an objection to, they were not to speak in public, but ask their own husbands at home; see 1Co 14:34. And thus, they were to behave….
Ver. 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach….They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father; see Pr 1:8. Timothy, no doubt, received much advantage, from the private teachings and instructions of his mother Eunice, and grandmother Lois; but then women are not to teach in the church…” (John Gill)

11. Let a woman learn in quietness….After having spoken of dress, he now adds with what modesty women ought to conduct themselves in the holy assembly. And he first bids them learn quietly…this he immediately explains more clearly, by forbidding them to teach.” (John Calvin)

123 comments:

selahV said...

Brad: Our seminaries could probably benefit from being lot like a lot of things, but Richmond as a pattern? I think not. (according to all I'm reading...but I've not been there.) Now...the subject of quiet silent women does interest me. Would you say this ought to apply in blogs as well? selahV

volfan007 said...

brad,

as gomer pyle used to say....thank ye...thank ye...thank ye.

you blessed my heart and strengthened my faith with your post.

i truly thank God that we have men like you in our seminaries.

volfan007

Les Puryear said...

Brad,

Glad to see you back. We've missed your insight.

You said, "when they continually find themselves on the same side of issues as the CBF, one wonders how broad they want our tent to be." Man, did you hit the nail on the head with that statement. Wade continues to claim to be a conservative but he sure sounds like a moderate, doesn't he?

Regards,

Les

P.S. Be prepared for the attack. Wade's folks aren't going to like what you said. :)

brad reynolds said...

Selah
I don't think it is applicable to blogs. Besides I really enjoy your wisdom.

Volfan,
Thank you for your kind words...fortunately, we have far better men, and for that matter women, in our seminaries. But thank you anyway
BR

brad reynolds said...

Les
Thanks.
I am sure, those who disagree will continue to fulfill my prophesy and deal with personalities (including me) rather than the issues...but we will try to stick to the issues here.
BR

Anonymous said...

Again, thank you for the light shining in this dark world of blogs. I praise God for your willingness to tackle the tough, the strange, and the counter-cultural.

Plus, with Les, SelahV and Peter occasionally dropping by, how can we go wrong here?

Anonymous said...

Bro Brad,

I too am glad to have you back and involved in the current SBC conversations. But I'm not sure that "Wade's folks" (I know that this isn't your term, but am using it out of convenience) are in disagreement with what you have stated concerning the issue of the role of women in ministry. That is, everyone seems to agree that women are not to be senior pastors & that some see teaching classes in a different way (under the authority of the pastor, et). But I digress. Ultimately, the concern they seem to have over there is the unjust dismissal of an intelligent professor at a seminary that our funds support. I have a couple of questions for you Brad:

1. Will you be working to get to the bottom of this?
2. If it is discovered that the account on Burleson's blog is accurate, will you be working to resolve the injustice?

May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle East

PS -- My apologies if this comment is not clear or comes across in a less than graceful manner ... it is not meant that way.

Anonymous said...

Brad,

Thank you for your post. The attacks of the last few days have boggled the ol mind. Why attack Dr. Patterson? He is one of the last men with a huge image in the real CR. This is very political and unethical, and unGodly, and ...!

Thanks for taking a stand and keeping to the issues and facts. I personally believe the a few of the bloggers should aplogize to Dr. K for using her for their political gain!

selahV said...

Rex: I pray God's merciful healing upon your twin brother and grace upon your time together. Rest assured I will continue to lift him to the throne of grace. selahV

Anonymous said...

Of the two people Burleson quoted in his latest, one is a life-long Episcopalian (Beckwith - even though Wade gives Baptists the credit for his accomplishments) and the other is a 5-point Arminian Truett Seminary Professor (Olson) who is a member of a CBF congregation pastored by a woman.

Interesting choices, I thought.

-Cliff Mathis

Anonymous said...

Welcome back, brother.

Wade Burleson said...

I think Brad's own words, in a comment he made on his own post entitled "Baptism: What Is It?" (December 8, 2006) are appropriate for this post. I had previously commented about Gill's view of baptismal authority (who can baptize?) which is consistent with my view, but opposite of Brad's. caused Brad to respond this way.

"It appears that your arguments . . . are coming from confessions and writings of a Baptist minister (John Gill) and not the Scripture."

:)

Could it be said 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'?

Or, maybe in honor of this post I should say, 'What's good for the goose is also good for another goose, but not the gander.'

:)

Selah, you ask a great question. When will the answer, which is an opinion, change? Thank about it.

Wade Burleson said...

Frank Beckwith is a Baptist. I don't know Olson.

brad reynolds said...

colinm,
Thank you my brother

anonymous,
As you know from reading this blog we desire and search for truth wherever it may lead us. However, I fear my PI credentials are lacking. I really don't have the time to confirm what bloggers say...for two reasons: 1) Many times it's unconfirmable; and 2) I am a new dad; the school semester is beginning and I pastor. Nevertheless, we will not shy away from truth and will gladly post relevent truths concerning happenings in the SBC. If you find out anything please feel free to post here.

Thanks for dropping by
BR

brad reynolds said...

Tim
Excellent observations
BR

brad reynolds said...

Bart
Thanks


Cliff
Very interesting...I didn't pick up on that. Thanks for shedding more light here.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Wade
Just a note: one's view of a subject (baptismal authority) is not equivalent to one's exposition of a text.

Further, do you know of any conservative scholarly commentator before the 20th century who agress with your interpretation of I Tim 2:12?
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
Maybe I completely missed the boat, but I thought much of the uproar aimed toward Dr. Patterson had more to do with his handling of the affair rather than his doctrinal positions in general. It was my understanding that this was the reason he was, as you say, 'singled out'.
From what I can glean from the papers and from the blogs, there was a female professor who was led to believe (by a former administration) that she was 'tenure track'. Then, when Dr. Patterson stepped in, he revoked that course of action - and this, at least reportedly, after having assented to the faculty (including this professor) that he had no intentions of doing such.
So, then, the primary issue is that of Dr. Patterson's handling of the situation - which SHOULD be made public - whether he handled it with integrity or whether he handled it with poor integrity.
Of secondary concern is whether or not females should be allowed to teach the languages. If teaching the languages is akin to teaching theology, then your post merits warrant. If, however, (as I am want to believe) teaching the languages is more of a liberal art, then possibly the languages should be moved under a different college, maybe the college of education? I'm just not sure I'd equate teaching Hebrew with teaching theology.

Grace brother,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL

Let me be clear on this. There is a large anti-Patterson element in the blogs. Perhaps it is in parcel due to those who may still be upset about the conservative resurgence, perhaps it has to do with the influence of Baylor (no longer a conservative bastion), perhaps it has to do with others desiring positions on the SBC, or perhaps it is personal issues...but, for as long as you have been on blogs you must know of the anti-Patterson sentiment.

Concerning the SBC, the President of a seminary reports to the Trustees, not the convention. The Trustees report to the convention. To reverse this is, to in effect, remove the Trustee system.

I know Dr. Patterson personally, and I trust his integrity. I have also had some of the very same bloggers who are accusing him reveal less integrity here, so one should not read blogs (or secular newspapers for that matter) as if they were inerrant.

Further, I know some Trustees personally, and their integrity is above reproach...so if my trust of men I know to be men of integrity and the Trustee system supercedes my trust of blogs and secular newspapers then at least you will understand why.

Moreover, making personnel issues public goes against all legal advice. So forgive me for giving Dr. Patterson and the Trustees the benefit of the doubt since I assume they know more about the situation than reporters and bloggers (including myself) and they are men of integrity.

Concerning your secondary concern, in our seminaries, Hebrew scholars do not just teach languages...they also teach OT surveys and Biblical studies, which our seminaries have long held to be an integral part of pastoral training.

Hope this helps
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I do not know Dr. Patterson personally, so you will understand why I can't share your unshakeable confidence in his integrity - nor do I have any reason to doubt his integrity. By the same token, however, I have no reason to doubt what has been posted in the blogs or what has been written in the, as you say, 'secular' newspapers as, to date, there has been no serious attempt by anyone to deny the reported sequence of events - merely to present a defense of why they occurred.
And, if the trustees failed to report the president's actions to the convention - i.e. to member sb's - (as appears to have been the case in this situation), how, then, will the convention/member sb's ever know what, exactly it is that their seminaries are doing?
I seem to recall that is was the 'public' reporting of moderate/liberal activity in Baylor University in the '80's that alerted many of the lay sb's to the fact that Baylor was no longer the bastion of conservative thought that many considered it to be, no?
I will agree that 'personnel' issues should not be public fodder, but this situation transcends mere 'personnel issues.' This is an issue of 'policy' not personnel.
Now, you may argue that even policy issues are not to be laid out to the public eye, but, in this case, that is a moot argument, no?
Because it is now a public issue - right or wrong - Dr. Patterson has the onus of demonstrating that he acted with integrity toward this professor. And, if he acted inappropriately, amends should be made.
Regarding the inclusion of OT surveys and Biblical Studies with Hebrew, is it necessary to do that? In other words, if there were a female professor who taught Spanish, would she be required to teach Spanish Literature as well? Is it not possible to seperate the languages from the Theological studies? Again, a moot issue, but I just don't see how teaching Hebrew falls within the realm of pastoring.

Grace,

PTL
And, reg

brad reynolds said...

PTL
Your apparent lack of understanding about the politics which lie behind this (i.e. the angst at Dr. Patterson; the issue of women in the ministry; the push against the conservative resurgence; the fact this was not initiated by Dr. Klouda and she has long since gone about her life (timing)) is very refreshing. And I mean that, it is refreshing to see someone who desires truth without the politics. However, as you must have read on other blogs, this issue has been handled in such a way as to defend women "preachers" (not pastors). Thus, the picture is much larger than you are apparently aware.

An attempt by the administration to correct the blogs would: 1) give the blogs a semblance of bona fide news reporting which may be undeserved (people go to school for years to be reporters) and 2) may get into private personnel records.

However, here on the blog sbcpastor has responded in part to the accusations against Dr. Patterson by stating"

"I find it “curious,” as do others, that Hodge’s article in the Dallas Morning News makes no mention of your “assertion” that Dr. Patterson gave assurance to Dr. Klouda that she would be granted tenure. Are you saying, in your post, that Klouda told you that he personally gave her assurance that she would be granted tenure? Or, is there a link to an article that you can provide for us stating that he did so?

Clearly, the Baptist Press article – the one that you referred to in your post – says no such thing. In fact, it clearly states the opposite of that which you claim:

“Patterson was asked whether he would allow a woman to teach in the seminary’s school of theology. Noting that his wife, Dorothy, had served on the faculty at Southeastern Seminary teaching in the women’s studies program she developed within the division of theology, Patterson said that information provided ‘something of an answer.’ Earlier, the board unanimously elected her as a full professor without pay while having faculty benefits.

‘It would not be my purpose as a leader to do anything in the school of theology that would be something other than what I would want our churches to imitate.’ Expecting that ‘there are ample numbers of men who are well-qualified for those positions,’ Patterson said he plans to build the faculty with ‘God-called men.’ He said opportunities arise for women to teach in the areas of Christian education, ministry to women and children as well as music ministry.”"

Hope this helps.

Also, concerning policy issues...it is a policy that ALL of our seminaries have to not have women teaching pastors in Biblical, Theological or Pastoral Ministries. This is not the case at BTSR or other CBF supported seminaries. This policy has not been hid from SB at all. While Baylor may have tried to hide some of their policies from Texas Baptist at one time, I am unaware of any policies our seminaries have tried to hide from any SB. In fact, one of my conservative professors was once asked if his class could be recorded and he responded: "of course, I'm a conservative." Needless to say, my more moderate professors did not want their classes taped.

Finally, the teaching of languages has to do with how our seminaries are set up: they have different "schools" or "areas" and every colleague is treated equally in their "area" or "school" which includes designing and setting up courses.

Thus, for example, at Southeastern a B area professor can teach within their expertise of NT Greek either the language or a book in the NT (please know this is very simplified). Further, there is a difference in teaching dead languages (languages no longer used for conversation, of which Biblical Hebrew is one) and living languages. The former is taught using written records of the languages (in this case that would be the Bible)

Therefore, your scenario of teaching the Hebrew language and never teaching the OT is really not "friendly" to the way our seminaries are set up (according to their SACS (accredited) approved schools or areas) nor to the language itself.
BR

Jim said...

Brad,

Thanks for the good article.

Practically, how should we deal with this issue in our churches... where women will step up to teach, but many men won't or aren't able?

Women should be honored for their service and we should raise up godly men, but what's the best way to do it?

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I'm afraid I may have caused some confusion in my post. I was not asserting that the seminaries were trying to hide the policy of not hiring women to teach Theology or Pastoral classes. I think most in the SB are well aware of that. I was asserting that, if a personnel issue was handled inappropriately, and if the trustees 'kept it to themselves' - for whatever reason - then lay sb's would never know what was going on. Agreed?
Now, IF Dr. Patterson acted inappropriately - and I simply postulating based on information that others (right or wrong) have made public - then we can ascertain that the trustees made no attempt to disclose the issue to their constituents, no? If he (Dr. Patterson) did not act inappropriately, then there was nothing for the trustees to report to their constituents.
To the teaching of languages - dead or active - there is, at least in the perception of my admittedly limited mental capacity, a SIGNIFICANT difference in teaching the language (letters, words, sentance structure, nouns, pronouns, masculine, feminine, etc.) and teaching the Bible. From what you're saying, however, may I assume that our seminaries do not make such distinction?
I apologize for my ignorance regaring our seminary system. I will confess to be an avid student of the Bible, but, alas, not nearly as comfortable with SB polity.

Grace,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL
One of the ways to teach Biblical Hebrew is to have students read the Hebrew Bible and to correct any misreading. Thus the distinction has not as much to do with languages verse Bible as it does with teaching instruments and the way our seminaries are set up...or at least that is how I see it. Hope this helps.
BR

Cliff4JC said...

....."Let me share, up front, that there are numerous things I wish God had not stated (a confession of both the limitation of the human mind as well as the rebellion of the human will). And yet, when God gave His Word He did not ask my opinion or approval. His Word stands no matter what I think.".......

That may be the coolest thing I've ever "heard" you say! Welcome back. Hows the newly enlarged family?

Joy,
Cliff

brad reynolds said...

Jim
Excellent question. Personally, for me, it comes down to teaching men their responsibilities and preaching through 1 Timothy. Any good pastor should preach through the pastoral epistles, concerning how to do church (ie-older women teaching younger women; older men teaching younger men; deacons serving not ruling; pastors leading not ruling, etc).

Further, I would never cause any split in a church over the issue of women teaching men. To me this issue is not one on which to die.

Expositing God's Word and training Godly men will solve many problems in churches. I also am grateful for the numerous ladies who consistently serve our Lord and savior, even in the absence of male leadership in churches.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Cliff
Thanks. The family is GREAT. Sadly, I fear I may not be blogging as much...I would much rather hold my son:)
BR

Cliff4JC said...

Brad & PTL & Everyone,

I think you guys are missing the point here as it relates to learning/teaching biblical languages. My experience in Languages classes has been that the most fruitful element of class was when we began to apply the learned material from dissecting a passage onto the issues of pastoral leadership. I cannot see how a Greek or Hebrew professor could teach the languages WITHOUT also dealing with theology. Am I wrong here?

Joy,
Cliff

Cliff4JC said...

".....Thanks. The family is GREAT. Sadly, I fear I may not be blogging as much...I would much rather hold my son:)........."

OK, so strike my earlier comment...THIS is my favorite thing you've ever said! :)

BTW: Would the I Timothy passage have bearing on our trustee system? Do trustees not have "authority" over men? While this hole sordid mess has been a mess...it has forced me to think through the biblical teaching here in a more thorough way. What say you?

Joy,
Cliff

RevBubbaBear said...

Mr. Mathis,

You are very observant. It seems that Wade enjoys quoting people who are either nueducated or who do not hold to traditional Southern Baptist beliefs. That is how he can argue such rediculous things.

Bubba

brad reynolds said...

Cliff
Good point.

Also, I would state that 1 Timothy has to do with the local church. The reason we do not employ women to teach men how to pastor is that to so so seems to go against the spirit of the BFM2000 (at least that's my thoughts). However, Trustees are not teaching men how to pastor...rather they are entrusted with the business of an entire institution.

That's my two cents
BR

Anonymous said...

Brad,

But you would have to admit that any women on the BoT do indeed sit in AUTHORITY over any men, even the president, on staff at the seminary.

volfan007 said...

cliff,

i would have to agree with brad on this. being a trustee is overseeing the seminary and how it runs. it is not teaching men the bible. so, i see nothing wrong with it.

brad,

i quoted the two men, gill and calvin, over on wade's blog. and, no one responded to it. also, you said that no commentary before the 20th century agrees with wade and his followers on the women teaching men issue? should not this speak volumes to wade and his followers?

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

KS
Good Point.
They do sit in authority over men employed at an institution...they do not sit in authority over a local church...Paul was dealing with the local church.
BR

brad reynolds said...

volfan
You are a go-getter:)

Also, I am not sure that no commentary before the 20th century agrees with his interpretation...but I am unfamilair with any that do.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Les
Has your blog moved?

Tim Guthrie,
Nice posts on your blog! And an excellent observation: why any SB would go to secular newspapers before going to a BoT or even the convention floor is certainly telling of the political agenda. Also, nice point, about the differences between the newspaper accounts and the blog accounts (Bart Barber, and Jeremy Green have made similar points).
BR

Anonymous said...

Bubba,

You are correct.

And Wade is wrong. Period.

Dr. Beckwith did not come to Baylor a Baptist but an Episcopalian. According to this website, he "attends" Dayspring Baptist Church.

And according to Dayspring's website, they are affiliated with the CBF.

Dr. Beckwith is very conservative as he is the President of ETS. But to suggest Baptists are responsible for producing such an accomplished scholar is dishonest.

Bloggers also should know who they are quoting (i.e. Roger Olson).

-Cliff Mathis

posttinebraelux said...

tevCliff & Brad,
I'm sure that if I was able to 'read' the original manuscripts in their native languages (Hebrew or Greek) that the text would 'come alive' for me, much the same way that reading Dostyevsky in Russian or Dante in Latin (with the understood exception that the Scriptures are inspired). My point was simply that one need not 'teach' theology or pastoral studies when teaching a language. The two are seperate topics. Is knowing the language (Hebrew in this instance) an invaluable tool for one to posess when taking an OT survey class or when studying the NT in original Greek? Absolutely. Is it possible for a woman to teach the language and then for the students to advance to theology or Biblical studies classes? In my limited understanding I think it would, but - as confessed earlier - I have not attended a seminary and must defer to the expertise of you all who are more learned than I. Therefore I will accept that it is not possible to teach a language with which the Bible was written (Hebrew/Greek) without conjunctively teaching Biblical studies as well.
I'm curious, though, what would Aurelius think of such assertions?

Grace,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL
Pardon my lack of clarity here...I certainly did not mean to imply that one cannot take Biblical Hebrew without dealing with the text...my point was that, in my humble opinion, since Biblical Hebrew is not a language practiced or learned through speaking, then I feel the best study would be with a text.

And what better text than the Holy scriptures. In other words I think it helps in learning the language to read and write it, since one doesn't speak it...and a text seems to be a good teaching tool in reading and writing.

I hope I have not totally muddied the waters here.

Further, and again I state, it also has to do with how our schools have been set up and accredited.
BR

Jeffro said...

Brad,

Are you a Sabbatarian? How many Baptist's prior to the 20th century were not?

God Bless

Anonymous said...

Volfan - You said you posted BR's comments on Wade's blog regarding Calvin and Gill commentary quotes(two of the greatest theologians in history by all accounts, by the way) and no one even said anything about them. Well, this is potentially to valuable to you (and others, perhaps?) to not give you another opportunity to see it. So here is what I posted over there for your benefit. Enjoy!

Volfan - I am barely able to type as I am overjoyed. It took this painful and sorrowful issue to get the job started, but you are on your way!!! Volfan expressing admiration for MacArthur?!!!...Quoting Gill and Calvin?!!!...WOW! Right theology is on the horizon my friend...so please don't stop at this one issue as you quote them here to your liking. Read on bro. and see what these great theologians had to say about other issues of theology as well. I once ran into these "tradition busters" and "theology makers" as well and I have been giving God ALL the glory ever since!

brad reynolds said...

Jeffro,
I don't think your logic follows. At least I am unwilling to throw out 1900 years of Biblical scholarship because we have been enlightened by "modernity."

Further, I did not limit my "scholarship" to Baptist.

But thanks for your input.
BR

brad reynolds said...

anonymous,
Pardon my interruption, but I must state that while both of these men are excellent scholars they are not inerrant. However, their love for the inerrant Word is what we shoud all enjoy...even more than their writings...and I'm sure you conquer.
BR

selahV said...

Hi there, Wade! I asked two questions in this thread. Which are you referring to and in what way would you like me to ponder? Scriptural reference? public opinion? Theological institutions bylaws and history? I want to think about it for you, so help me out a bit. Okay?
Great to see you over here. You are so funny. Such sarcasm when you talk to the "gander" over here. I can't call Brad a goose since he is a male after all. But I have some questions for you to consider, dear Wade. Are you calling Brad a goose? Or a gander? Or, as in the second definition of goose and gander: a simpleton and dolt? Just wondering. Or are you talking about the female gender as a goose? As in a metaphorical goose or as a simpleton and dolt?

Don't forget to let me know which question of opinion you'd like me to "thank" or as we say it up in New England, "think" about. Blessings upon blessings, selahV

P.S. Will you remember Rex's brother in prayer? He is very very very sick. A lung disease caused by a fungus in the air in Arkansas as I recall. And pass that along to Debbie. (Kaufman) Debbie does pray for folks alot. That's what I like about her.

Les Puryear said...

Brad,

You asked, "Has your blog moved?" Well, sorta. :) I shut it down because I was spending too much time writing blogs and responding to comments. I felt it was interfering with my call to take the gospel to the people.

Now I just comment on everybody else's blog. It's a lot less time consuming.

Thanks for asking.

Les

selahV said...

PTL: Hello my friend. Still have Patrick in my prayers.

Brad: A few thoughts if you don't mind. To anyone who loves to quote the "secular" press. I was a reporter for my own conservative newspaper which I published in Owensboro, KY during the "Contract with America" days. (which by the way is where Tom Ascol just taught something or the other at Heritage Baptist...a church where good friends of mine attend).

Whenever there was a news conference in Owensboro, Evansville, Bowling Green or Louisville, the words of someone was inevitably slanted to the view or perspective of the editor of the secular newspapers. I talked with multiple reporters who were as conservative as I and they told me the editor would literally change the whole voice of their articles at times. Now, this is not to say that the reporter in the Dallas paper had that happen. But every time I've ever seen a newspaper (which are almost all liberally-slanted), the news-hounds are sent looking for stories to put Southern Baptists specifically and Evangelical Protestant Christians in general in as many unfavorable stories as they can conjure up.

Just look at the "title" of the story in the Dallas paper regarding Dr. Klouda. Inflaming in itself to anyone who prides themself in their faith. SBC is not in the news for pedophilia, so let's put them in the news for dissing women. Big Row. OOOOOoooo! Yippee. What is that to the world? I wonder.

Did Patterson get caught in a web of lies with a homosexual? No. Was he involved in a unsavory act? No. He was caught doing his job in the way he felt called to do it. He is accountable, but most certainly NOT to the general "lost" public. It sickens me.

This chatter reminds me of every time someone in a church sits in the wrong pew, or says something in a business meeting, or a pastor is under fire from a disgruntled deacon. By the crack of dawn the next day, it's carried out into the local coffee shop and bandied about and raised from a molehill into a mountain. And the garbage is heard by everyone in that town and the church itself is trashed.

That, my friends, is a corporate sin. We are sinning against the corporate body of Jesus Christ every time we disgrace ourselves by dumping on one of our own in a public forum before an ungodly world.

Rarely do we see what the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief teams do on scenes such as Katrina, Tornado-torn areas or others. No, no. It's always what the Salvation Army does. Or the Red Cross. And more times than not, Southern Baptists are the first responders or the ones supporting the Red Cross.

Were any secular newspapers there in New Orleans reporting what our 100-plus youth did to tear out drywall and ceilings for folks in 100-plus degree heat and humidity? I didn't hear of a one. I could care less whether we are credited for our kindness and good-will. Our reward is not of this world.

But I just wanted to mention that newspapers are not the best source for looking for information in discerning credibility of a story. Newspapers could care less about the integrity of our convention or our convention's leaders. And to be perfectly frank, neither are blogs. Many of the blog hosts seem to have agendas and a political ladder to climb. And issues as yummy as a woman's place in ministry is so grand for the salivating palate of ones looking to change the position of the long established history of Baptists based on theological statements of faith.

If women aren't happy with Baptist positions, why don't they just go be Episcopalians? Or go teach at that seminary Brad questions whether SB seminaries should pattern ourselves after?

I don't say this to even suggest that Dr. Klouda should do this. I believe God indeed has a place for such an esteemed knowledgable scholar as she in our convention. And from what I read, she didn't ask for this limelight. Maybe I read that wrong. But did she or did she not have another position? Is she angry? Does she feel denegrated? Devalued? Who is riding this horse we are whipping anyway? Where is the finish line?SelahV

volfan007 said...

anon,

i have read all types of people...calvin, gill, spurgeon, ironside, etc. i try to learn from these men. i dont go to the "extreme" on any of thier teachings. i prefer to not try to limit God to my little box. i prefer to let the scripture say what it says.

volfan007

Cliff4JC said...

LOL

Vol, I couldn't help but laugh hysterically when I read what Annonomous wrote to you! I can just picture you now on the back porch of your mountain cabin reading the blogs on your puter; when (agast!), someone suggests you are close to "good" (5 pointerism) theology! I bet your rocking chair flew back so far you almost fell backward off the porch and smashed your dawg! :) (just a poke in in the name of good fun, my friend!) hehehe

BTW: Another of my students who went on the weekend retreat I mentioned to you over at "Bart's World" came forward (yes, we do invitations) Sunday repenting of her sins and surrendering her life to God! Thrilling! She said to me today that it was the greatest moment of her life! She asked if I would baptise her and read her testimony to the church. Pretty cool huh?

Joy,
Cliff

Cliff4JC said...

Brad,

I'm still wrestling with this whole "authority" issue. I'm not sure that we don't have a "consistency" problem with saying that we want men to train our pastors, but we are ok with letting women have authority over men who are training our pastors. I'm not making a positional statement here, I am just sharing that I'm still not sure about all this. Gray area for sure.

So, a women can teach a man outside the church in your interpretation? Meaning, in areas where we are not preparing men for the pastorate, women can be employed to teach men without violating the "authority" clause?


PTL, please do not read any arrogance on my part in my early statement to you! I didn't know you hadn't been to seminary and I am not suggesting any superiority on my part (or anyone else’s for that matter) because we have. At the same time, I would highly recommend that you take any opportunity you may be blessed with to go through a Biblical Greek class. Not for the reasons we have stated above, but for your own edification. I’ve taken 3 from 3 different institutions and I loved it every time! I still stink at it! I bet you know more about Greek than I do! I am defiantly “linguistically challenged!” However, the richness I have gleaned from those classes despite my shortcomings in understanding the actual language is well worth it! In the process however, you will come to understand the point that I was making earlier. Biblical language classes by their very nature become theology classes. In my opinion, that is the best part!

Joy,
Cliff

Anonymous said...

BR - I would submit that these theologians proper exegesis of the text is BECAUSE of their love for the inerrant text.

Also, you have done this several times so you may not know. I think you mean "concur" when you say "conquer". To conquer is to overtake or overwhelm. To concur is to be in agreement with, as we do about these great theologians...unless they say something that goes against man's traditions...then they are simply human and therefore not inerrant. :)

CB Scott said...

Brad,

I have to go with Wade on this one.

What happened to Sheri Klouda was not proper in any Christian context. Frankly, it was just down right rude behavior on the part of all involved in her treatment.

cb

brad reynolds said...

anonymous

You are correct. I knew the difference but apparently it did not make it to the type. I meant concur. I'm not big on conquering anything but evil:)

Thanks
BR

brad reynolds said...

CB
You are familiar with all of our seminaries. Do any of the other ones employ women to teach men Scriptures? Does the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond?

So, if Southwestern continued in that vein would they have been more like BTSR or our other seminaries? Just some thoughts to ponder.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Cliff
I am not saying that I Timothy allows for women teaching men the Scriptures outside the local church, I think the roles established at creation has something to do with that. What I am saying is the text itself (2:12) is dealing with the local church.

It is something we all must work through, honestly and before our Lord, desiring Scripture to be the final authority, not our male dominated society, nor our women's role equality philosophy.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Selah
Excellent thoughts especially about how our SBC gets unsavory reporting from the media (especially the neglect of our relief efforts, which are only rivaled by the Red Cross). Sadly, I think many blogs would rather focus on inflated negative news than all the good the SBC is doing.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Selah,
Good morrow to you as well my friend. Your words are sage as usual. The purpose of the vast majority of reporting agencies (i.e. newspapers, news broadcasts, etc.) is to report news - not necessarily truth. I'll make the extraordinary assumption that baptist agencies (BP, eg.) are more concerned with reporting truth. At any rate, whether the 'news' is obtained through secular avenues, blogs, or even 'Christian' reporting agencies, it is always just that - news - until it is verified. And, unfortunately, failures/errant actions of perceived 'Christian' individuals make for good fodder. I think that is why it is SO important for Christian leaders to be above even the 'appearance of sin'. In the specific case alluded to in Brad's post, there is the accusation, not of a doctrinal position (i.e. that of women in authority over men with respect to pastoral education), but rather that Dr. Patterson may have erred by insinuating one thing (that Dr. Klouda was 'safe' in her position) and then reneging on that supposed affirmation. Is that newsworthy? Yes, in that it casts a denigrating light on an otherwise spotless Christian giant. Should it be fodder for the 'secular' world? Not in my opinion - which usually doesn't count for beans. Should sb's be concerned about whether or not Dr. Patterson acted in this manner? yes - in my opinion - which usually doesn't count for beans. Is it NEARLY as important as the countless altruistic and benevolent things any number of Christians do every day of the year? Not on your life!

PS - thanks for the prayers for Patrick.

Grace to you sister,

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

Cliff,
No offense taken at all. I do think that there is often an air of 'I'm more knowledgeable than you because I've been to seminary and you haven't' on the blogs, but I did not get that impression from you at all. And, I'm sure you're spot on with your encouragement to take Greek or Hebrew classes. Unfortunately, the closest seminaries to me are 1.5 hours (DTS) and 2 hours (SWBTS) - a bit of a drive, no? I do think, however, that I may delve into an individual study of Greek based in no small part on your encouragement.

Grace to you brother,

PTL

selahV said...

PTL: You said: At any rate, whether the 'news' is obtained through secular avenues, blogs, or even 'Christian' reporting agencies, it is always just that - news - until it is verified."
Ever think about the word news? As a writer, I have. In journalism school, wannabe journalists are told to get answers to Who, What, When, and Where? But why is to be left speculative. The facts. That's what they are suppose to report as news--good or bad.

My problem with the reporting to a public forum that which one "speculates" Dr. Patterson did or did not do is not Christian based. If we believe a brother or sister has erred, we are to go to them privately. Now one commenter on this blog said he, in fact, tried to contact Dr. Patterson with no response. So because of Dr. Patterson's silence and lack of desire to defend himself to his so-called accuser gave the commenter the "right" to go ahead and write in a well-read public forum the alleged sin of Dr. Patterson. (Like anyone but God can attest to exactly what Dr. Patterson did or didnot say to Dr. Klouda). I'm sorry, PTL, I have so much difficulty accepting the public rebuke of others toward leaders in our convention like they are witnesses in a court of law. The Bible is the guidebook. And the Guidebook just doesn't read this way to me. These things sadden me. They really do.
I don't know if Dr. Patterson led Dr. Klouda to assume she'd have tenure or not. But surely, surely, if he did, this is not a issue which warrants such public outcry. It is political, plain and simple. And it's sad that brothers and sisters seem to feed on what another's alleged mis-steps have been. It's sad.

God grant mercy and peace to Dr. Patterson and Dr. Klouda. It's for certain that many bloggers aren't apt to offer much if any to Dr. Patterson. Should we all be judged the way we judge, I dare say we would tremble and think twice about what we say and do. Unfortunately, most of us think we are above reproach in our Christian walk. Oh that it would be so. God Bless you brother, SelahV

brad reynolds said...

Selah

Excellent Thoughts!!!

The fact Dr. Patterson did not respond (which was probably wise on his part, so his words would not get twisted) to the alleged contact of him would not (in my mind at least) ever excuse an individual to drag a man of God's name through the mud on a public blog (This is one of my problems with some of the blogs - they seem to delight in mud-slinging, which isn't becoming of Christian character).

Surely we could afford Dr. Patterson the same courtesy which is prescribed for pastors, before believing accusations (at least two witnesses).

Bottom line...this was political...period. And the outcry should be against such a poor display of Christian love on blogs. The secular businesses do a better job of "public kindness" than do some of these "Christian" blogs.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Selah,
You are exactly right about the 'issue', if such even exists, being one which is for sb's and not the general public, although I'm not quite sure how to disseminate such information to sb's without it becoming 'public' knowledge. And, the ONLY reason it should be of relevance to sb's is that we expect our leaders to be above reproach and, again - right or wrong, by taking the position as president of one of our fine seminaries, Dr. Patterson has set himself up under the microscope of observation - as do most any persons of significant leadership positions. And, right or wrong, leaders are typically held to higher standards than we hold to ourselves.
I am unaware of any malice toward Dr. Patterson, other than that he seems to be the topic of much blog conversation - but then again, so does our good friend Brad Reynolds. Maybe I'm extremely naive in this area, or maybe I'm just 'out of the loop' so to speak. At any rate, if those who called him out are in search of the truth in defense of holding our leaders to actions above reproach, then I commend their desire for truth, albeit not necessarily their methods of dissemination. If those who called him out have done so for so called 'political' reasons, then shame on them - and I mean that sincerely - shame - on - them.
I know that you and I agree that, regardless of the reasons for bringing this to light, it has certainly commanded significantly greater attention than 'stuff' which is more worthy of our time.
When things like this happen, I never cease to be comforted by the fact that this all has passed the Almighty's desk before we even knew about it.

Have a blessed evening Selah,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL
You are Right On.

God has seen and allowed this. I take comfort that God will set all things straight one day. Such a thought causes me to be very careful about speaking against the Lord's anointed...it also causes me concern in all aspects of my life. My I be vigilant to guard my soul from any wicked way.
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
Well spoken - only I might add that we are all the Lord's annointed. God forbid that any of us speak slanderously against any other, from those of lofty position to those of meager subsistence.

Tell Kelton that PTL said hello. :)

peace to you my friend,

PTL

SelahV said...

Brad: I am wondering. Not about Patterson's alleged decision or about Dr. Klouda's exit from the seminary. But if a woman is employed to a position and at the time she is employed to that position she is indeed already a woman, why would she be allowed to do something in the first place if she wouldn't be allowed to do forever? Just curious. SelahV

selahV said...

PTL: you and I seem to be chasing the fox around the hen-house today. Just because it is out of the house, doesn't mean it was right to chase it.

I agree that Southern Baptists need to be informed if leaders are living in sin and walking ungodly paths. I do not think that is the case here. I may be wrong. But insuation is that someone has outright lied. I don't understand the politics involved here--why champion a cause in which there is no cause to do so? Unless that cause brings glory to oneself?

If I were Dr. Patterson, I'd be silent too. Only for another reason. Jesus says we have no need to defend ourselves against allegations for the sake of defending ourselves. Jesus himself stood before Pilate and "opened not His mouth". I think Jesus is a great example for keeping silent when accused. And in America, a person is innocent until proven guilty. What I find ironically odd in the Christian arena of Blogdom, is that people are guilty until proven innocent. Then it's too late.

I once saw a man accused of an atrocity on the first page top fold of the local newspaper. When he was found totally and completely innocent, the news was reported in tiny print on page 6 of the first section. His reputation was ruined. He went through life known as, "Isn't he the one who?" And few knew he wasn't the one who.

Sad...very sad.
I enjoy reading your thoughts on these subjects. Can't always agree but you know that I know you mean me no harm. :) SelahV

brad reynolds said...

PTL
David distinguished between the chosen of God and those exalted to special positions of authority by God. But we are agreed we should not speak slanderously against brothers/sisters or even those who are not saved.

Also, I let Kelton know that PTL said hello.


Selah,
A former administration employed her. I am confident Dr. Patterson would not have. His track record (Criswell, Southeastern, Southwestern) evidences that he has never hired women to teach pastors the Scriptures.
BR

CB Scott said...

Brad,

My beloved brother,

I must disagree with the very premise of your argument.

This has nothing to do with the "seminary" in Richmond. There is no comparison between that ill-begotten "experiment" in theological education and the six legitimate SBC seminaries.

Let the Devil take the hindmost parts of that seminary in Richmond. There is no commonality whatsoever between it and our institutions.

This situation involves the poor treatment of one Christian lady by other Christian ladies and gentlemen.

Dr. Sheri Klouda did not and does not deserve what has happened and is happening to her.

By the same mercies you extended to me I beseech you to have compassion on your sister in Christ and stand down. She was not a pastor or deacon. She was a language teacher, nothing more and nothing less.

I can see no good thing in this dishonor toward this woman. She has been hurt and shamed without cause. There is no biblical basis for the rude behavior she received from her brothers and sisters at SWBTS.

cb

Greg Hicks said...

Brad,

You state, "It is a policy that ALL of our seminaries have to not have women teaching pastors in Biblical, Theological or Pastoral Ministries" and "This policy has not been hid from SB at all." The policy you reference is news to me (MDiv graduate of SWBTS, 1986), so I have a couple of questions for you:

1) Where can I find a copy of this policy?

2) If the policy of ALL our seminaries is not to have women teaching pastors in Biblical, Theological, or Pastoral Ministries, why did the SWBTS Board hire Dr. Klouda (as well as Dr. Bullock)? Wouldn't this constitute a violation of said policy?

brad reynolds said...

CB
The policy of utilizing women to teach men in Biblical/Theological or Pastoral Studies has a lot to do with seminaries that do such. Further, I have a tough time believing what blogs say without evidence.

But I will answer the questions for you:

1. Do any of the other seminaries employ women to teach men Scriptures? NO
2. Does the BTSR? YES
3. If SW continued in this vein would they have been more like BTSR or our other seminaries? BTSR


Greg,
Welcome…Pardon my opinion…I guess I should have said no seminaries currently practice hiring women to teach men Biblical/Theological or Pastoral Ministries.

That is not to say they have not done so in the past. I remember a time when they not only employed women to teach men such pastoral studies but they also employed liberals. Thank God for our present Presidents.
BR

CB Scott said...

Brad,

In the seminary you teach in there is a fine lady teaching in the music department. Dr. Patterson hired her. To teach sacred music in a seminary one must, by the nature of the subject matter, speak to theological issues relating to music.

If one is to teach Hymnody and Hymnology and other disciplines of sacred music one must teach and refer to theology.

They must teach sound theology for worship music. If not we will have the music of the "Toronto Blessing" or Bruce Springsteen coursing through our worship centers in no time. (I would favor Springsteen:-)

What is the difference between teaching the theology of sacred music and teaching the language of the sacred Text? Are not both important? Do not both deal with theology? I certainly hope so.

I do not want special music such as I heard in one church over twenty years: "HEAVEN IS JUST A SIN AWAY" by the Kendalls. Sound theology must be taught in the schools of music in all of our seminaries and we both know women teach sacred music in our seminaries.

Also, men are students in those classes where music is taught by women. Are those men lesser men than those that major in preaching?

Furthermore, it was Dr. Patterson that hired that fine lady who teaches sacred music at SEBTS. I was there when he hired Dr. Nanette Godwin as Professor of Church Music and she is excellent as a teacher of sacred music, as are her male counter parts Dr. John Davis and Dr. John Boozer, who are also professors of church music.

Language or music, what is the difference? Both are of a theological nature in a seminary setting.

There is no logic or Christian ethic in what happened to Dr. Sheri Klouda.

cb

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I'm afraid I'm not aware of the passage you're referring to (David distinguishing between God's chosen - I assume pastors? - and not chosen); you'll have to point me in the right direction if you don't mind.

Thanks brother,

PTL

volfan007 said...

brad,

amen and amen.

david

posttinebraelux said...

Selah,
I think you'll find if you read my comments, that I've championed no cause. I have merely stated that, now that the 'cat is out of the bag' so to speak, if the allegations are true, then Dr. Patterson has acted unbecomingly and should, in my opinion make amends - whatever those may be. If the allegations are false, then shame on those who made them. You disagree?

PS - you are always welcome to disagree with me - you always do so with the utmost grace.

Peace sister,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

CB
I think I know you well enough to know you may want to reconsider the implication of your last comment. Surely, you are not implying that the teaching of music is equivalent to the teaching of Scriptures.
BR

volfan007 said...

there is a huge difference in teaching music and in teaching the bible. the difference is so huge that its comparing apples and oranges.

brad, when will people see that we are just trying to be obedient to what the bible clearly teaches on this issue?

david

Benjamin S. Cole said...

Brad:

You're wrong about other SBC seminaries not employing women to teach men the Scriptures.

I won't tell you where you're wrong because I'm confident there's enough gray matter between you and those other converging boys to figure it out.

Or you could keep reading Wade's and my blogs. I'm sure the information will be found there in the near future.

BSC

Cliff4JC said...

What??? Vol's name is David? Extraordinary!

Brad, I really think CB has a point. He has articulated much more clearly what I have been struggling with all week as we have conversed about this topic. I'm looking to be consistent. Mind you; I am trying to have my conversation independent of Kloudagate. I am trying to explore the scripture for some guidance on what should be our policies and beliefs. Where ever we come down on this; we MUST be consistent and not "tradition" based.

I still see a problem with the authority clause. If we use the argument that we are training men for ministry, so the seminary should model what our churches ought to be, then any women teaching any subject at a seminar is problematic.

You said to CB: "Surely, you are not implying that the teaching of music is equivalent to the teaching of Scriptures."

Well...my response couldn't be stronger....OF COURSE HE IS!!!! The mindset that sees music in our churches as nothing more than music is the same mindset that has bred the disgusting abuses we see in our churches today. Some of this stuff that is passed off as "worship" is awful. The roots of this I believe are squarely in the thinking that says, it's just music. Music should flow out of theology! Music teachers should be theologians! Worship leaders should be theologians! Theology should be at the center of any credible seminary music department. If it is not; I'll be so bold as to say the department is NOT credible! So yes! CB has a point here.

I don't have answers yet; I'm still wrestling with these questions of the implications of 1 Timothy and how to be consistent in applying the scripture in our seminaries.

Joy,
Cliff

Jeffro said...

Brad,

I had no input. Only a question. Are you a sabbatarian? And I will not limit it to Baptists. How many theologians do you know before 1900 were not? Please name them. I am curious.

Are you a dispensationalitst? How many theologians were dispensationalists prior to 1850? Please name them.

God Bless,

selahV said...

PTL: Agreed. You have not championed a cause. When I spoke of chasing the fox around the hen-house, I was referring to our discussions regarding "news" reporting. I agree if there is a wrong committed, then the wrong should be righted. However, it's possible the wrong that was committed may not be anyone who is involved in this matter, but those formerly in positions of decision making. And if so, and the trustees today agree with Dr. Patterson, I'm afraid it appears (and I say "appears" with great fear and trembling), that he felt it his responsibility to correct a course of action in which he felt was not in the best interest of the seminary. I'm no expert on any of this, PTL. I'm like you. Just beginning to get my head out of the sand and see what the brew-ha-ha is all about in our convention. I have been amazed at the structured, organized efforts to "reform" all SBC churches and pastors, seminary students, professors and church leaders to follow 9 marks and 5-points. You and I have had this discussion in brevity before. And I know how you feel about Calvin. The more I read about his actions, the less respect I have regarding his words and theology. Could his thoughts on election be what gave him license to do some of the things he did? I'm sure he felt he was one of the elect.

I don't know about all the stuff going on in the SBC, the seminaries, the trustee boards, etc. I do know I don't like "how" it is being publicized. I think there are more discretionary ways in which to handle disagreements.

I take these examples and try to apply the ways in which they are going to what the Lord would have us do in our local churches. I apply scriptural principles to everything, as I'm sure you do, and some of this stuff going on is so far afield from the red-letters written in my Bible, that I feel like crying. And then to think that people outside of our beloved Convention--totally unaffiliated--stand sneering at our childish ways further slits my jugular.

It's hard, PTL. It really is. I do not believe some of the people pushing and shoving are less Christian than I. I think satan has his diabolical interpretative demons holding back the prayers of Daniels just as he did in the old testament. And we battle not each other, but the evils of darkness. That's just my take on it all.

Blessings again to you, brother.
By the way, please keep Rex's brother in your prayers. And there is a minister over on Marty Duren's site who is in desparate need of transportation and he has four children as I recall. Marty is calling for donations of $5.00 for him. I'm gratified to see someone actually actively engaged in helping a brother in need. I know when I was in seminary, I was slammed with financial difficulties. And our early church only paid us 109.00 a week and we had two adolescent children. I don't know who the pastor is other than the name on Marty's site, but he's a minister with a family. So that's enough for me. selahV

SelahV said...

Brad: I think I am about to wade out into water much deeper than I've waded into in many years. And should you think I need to reexamine my thinking on this issue, please feel free to tell me before this is posted.

Scripturally speaking, women will always be "under" the rule of men. And even if they never marry, they live in a fallen world in which God gave His take on the woman's place. I don't like it. I don't like the fact that I was in excruciating pain when I bore my four children and only had two to show for the pain. I don't like it that though I adore my husband that I find myself having to answer to him ultimately for multiple things. (not because he is dictatorial, domineering--nay, he is the opposite of that) But I find myself seeking the best of what is left to me under the dictates of what my Sovereign Lord set forth in Eden.

I truly believe this is the crux of the whole issue with women today. Men don't wear the pants because we women want to wear them. In many cases women are superior to men in many ways--organizationally, intuitively, capacity to process information and discern better ways to deal with problems. But, that said, doesn't mean they are superior to men. And I don't believe God sees men as superior to women.

However, for whatever reason God decided that women would love their husbands and their husbands would rule over them, God made that clear in Genesis. Women have been rebelling against that from the beginning of time. Much of the problems in our marriages today stem from that rebellion. Equally, marital discord is due to man's inability to "love" his wife sacrificially as Christ loved the church.

When I first began studying how I was to be a Godly wife to my husband, it blew my mind. I cannot tell you how much I rebelled against the ideas God put forth in His Word. I felt Paul was a chauvenist. I saw Jesus as my mediator. And I almost saw God and Jesus as separate Gods because I thought they were at odds with each other in their positions with women. Then I began to subject myself as unto the Lord. And a whole new world opened up to me.

I have repeatedly been told that I need to come down where the real people live from my idealic way of thinking. But I refuse to do so. And some of those who scoffed at my way of accepting my place according to God's Word have long since gotten divorces.

I truly believe women need to be doing more to undergird women to help women. Instead I feel there is a sisterhood who undergird women to be better men in the world of men. I can't blame them. I feel it is like the proverbial frog in the slowly heating kettle. Unfortunately, our culture has allowed us to go to extremes I feel the Lord never intended. And I feel the extremes in which we find ourselves today are the very reason for the division among women and men.

World War II forced women into a male cominated work force. Women's Sufferage ripped the apronstrings from our mothers' waist and Women's Lib stripped women of undergarments. Liberal thinking women found like-minded liberal-thinking women and women began their climb up the ladder of success at the expense of latchkey children. Government began supporting women who had children out of wedlock and made welfare a way of life. No need for men when the government is footing the bill.
Society's ills seeped into the churches and no longer did the church help the widows and orphaned children. It left it up to the government.

The less government supported single mothers, the faster the abortion rate climbed. More and more women began thinking careers and less and less women considered motherhood and wife as noble or virtuous positions for themselves. Culture demanded men become more sensitive...more in tune with their feminine side. Tenderness and gentleness is fine--wimps aren't. Man began to wonder what his role was in life. Women had no problem explaining it to him. Then she wondered why she felt guilty that she could not balance the checkbook, the laundry, the playtime and the account spreadsheets at work.

Today...we are in the mess of our own rebellious making. It's like trying to dip water out of a sinking canoe with a thimble. It is unfixable. However, it is worth trying. And I'm sure we will continue to have heated discussions in the future. But two mommies and two daddies is a direct result of one set of mixed up confused mommies and daddies.

God forgive us wherein we fail. God direct us wherein we are blind. God give us new hearts, new eyes, new ears. Help us Father, we are so far from where you want us to be. So very far. How can we who've gone so far astray find our way back to You? Help us, Lord. Help us all. selahV

CB Scott said...

Brad,

In no way did I say teaching music is equivalent to teaching Scripture.

My comparison was between teaching language and music.

I said: "Language or music, what is the difference? Both are of a theological nature in a seminary setting."

The point is: women teach sacred music in our seminaries. If a woman teaches Hymnody or Hymnology she must, by the nature of the subject matter, teach both theology and the Bible.

I also pointed out that men sit under the authority of women in those classes while being taught Hymnody and Hymnology. If a professor teaches any discipline within sacred music theology and Scripture must be addressed.

Show me a woman that does not address theology and Scripture when teaching those disciplines and I will show you a woman that needs to be fired.

I have already stated Dr. Godwin is an excellent teacher, Therefore, I know she addresses theology and Scripture when she teaches men.

Also, I asked you if men studying music in seminary were lesser men than those studying preaching?

I know you know the answer to that silly question is: NO.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if one teaches music or language one must address both Scripture and theology.

You are a professor of education. I also taught education. Therefore, I know that due to the fact that you teach education in a seminary it must be Christian education. I, also, know one must address Scripture and theology in order to teach Christian education. If one fails to do so, one should be fired.

We also have women English teachers and women teaching counseling in our seminaries.

It must be taught from a Christian worldview. To teach any discipline from a Christian worldview one must address theology and Scripture.

If a professor teaches any discipline in a seminary without addressing Scripture and theology that professor should be fired.

Dr. Klouda taught languages in the proper way for a seminary setting. She should not have lost her position.

Dr. Godwin teaches Christian music in the proper manner.

She addresses Scripture and theology. She should not loose her job for teaching the discipline in the proper manner.

Brad, did you even study Hymnody and Hymnology in seminary? I ask that because if you had, you would easily see the point I am making.

You answered me with a "strawman argument" about "music and Scripture" being equivalent. We both know that to teach anything in a seminary properly it must be taught from a Christian worldview which in reality is a biblical worldview. To teach a biblical worldview one must teach Scripture and theology.

If a professor does not address Scripture and theology while teaching in a SBC seminary, be they male or female, they should be fired. If they are addressing Scripture and theology, as necessary for a seminary setting, they should be left to their jobs.

If they fail to address theology and Scripture in an orthodox manner they should be fired and then they can go teach at TBSR.

Why there? Because as I said in an earlier comment, there is no comparison between TBSR and any one of our six seminaries and your argument as to a comparison is without merit.

cb

brad reynolds said...

Ben
So good of you to drop by again and thanks for reading my blog. By the way, the last time you were here, I asked a question which you failed to answer, perhaps you can answer now:

You claimed on your blog that Dr. Patterson was fired from Criswell College for financial improprieties. You made this claim after calling and chastising me for saying I knew why you had been fired when I had not seen the personnel files (although my information came from someone who you told the reason to). My question was why you would chastise me for making such a claim when you did the very same thing (only stating a false reason and doing so on a blog post, not in the comment section) without having seen the personnel records at Criswell.

Further, the very claim was wrong for two reasons: 1) Dr. Patterson was not fired; 2) The situation at Criswell had nothing to do with financial improprieties. I know, I was there. So, if your claims continue to have the same validity, as that one did, than carry on my friend.

Concerning the issue which you bring up now, my statement, may possibly, be in error; I arrived at my conclusion in the following manner: 1) I knew I had never had a Biblical/Theological/Pastoral Ministry prof who was a woman, and I knew of none that taught at SE. Therefore, I was curious if any of our other seminaries had one. I went to all of our seminary websites (something everyone reading this is encouraged to do: just Google Midwestern, Southeastern, Southern, Southwestern, New Orleans, and Golden Gate Seminaries) and looked up their faculty. I found no woman teaching in OT/NT, Hebrew/Greek, Pastoral Ministries, or Theological Studies with the only exceptions being women who teach Theological Studies to WOMEN or Women’s Ministry professors. The difference should be obvious to most!

There is no need to speak to other “Joshua Convergers;” for this has nothing to do with them. Further, I don’t even know if they are aware I have posted anything. My wife is the only one I run my posts by. This blog is strictly my opinions on things as I search for truth.

However, even if you were to show that one of our seminaries employs a woman to teach NT/OT I think the effort you will have to go through in order to find her would prove that such is not the rule for our seminaries.

Further, I think if you will look at BTSR, or for that matter, the seminary of your Alma Mater (Truett Seminary at Baylor) you will find that women are teaching the Scriptures. Both of these seminaries are supported by the CBF. Surely, the difference is obvious. Perhaps there are more attachments with the CBF in this latest political ploy than appears on the surface.

Finally, the assumption that I read your’s or Wade’s blog regularly is an assumption which is not supported by facts as your own ISP records will reveal. You know I rarely stop by your blog and when I do, it is usually because someone has told me to read it. Now please don’t be offended…that is not to say that what you have to say is not important, it may very well be, extremely important…but it is to say, that I am very busy right now.

Have a Blessed Day
Also, if you could, I would love an answer to my question.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Cliff
Agreed about Christian Music teachers knowing theology well. But I disagree about the connection you are making. I don’t feel teaching the writings of CS Lewis is the same as teaching Scriptures although his writings are definitely about God and contain theology…nor do I feel teaching the words of hymns is the same as teaching the Scriptures although the hymns are also about God and contain theology. Further, I make the distinction of the passage being written about local churches not institutions. Dr. Patterson’s decision really had nothing to do with this concept anyway…since he was concerned about women teaching men pastoral ministries…so I also agree with you that this discussion is different than SW.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Jeffro
Not a sabbatarian. As far as dispensationalists goes I would have to say “somewhat”
BR

brad reynolds said...

Selah
As always very very wise words.
BR

brad reynolds said...

CB
We will disagree again. Teaching Hebrew/OT or Greek/NT is not the same to me as teaching music or even hymnology or the theology of Spurgeon or CS Lewis or Christian Education.

The comparison of CBF supported seminaries having women teaching OT/Hebrew and none of our seminaries having such is very much with merit just look for yourself to see if there is such a difference. Google the seminaries and their faculty. Now, wherever, you fall on this…the point is SW has not behaved in a manner that is different from our other seminaries…thus singling them out seems most political. Why not fuss at our other seminaries for not hiring women to teach OT/Hebrew?

Just a note one of my colleagues who is aware of the happenings on this blog mentioned to me that we have a man who teaches hymnology at SE. Also, you know I believe we have the greatest faculty in the world at SE and I am grateful for every one of them…but I am uncomfortable discussing personalities on my blog…I would rather stick to the issues.
BR

Benjamin S. Cole said...

Nope.

Don't think I'll answer your question.

I'll just be cheeky.

BSC

Anonymous said...

Professor Reynolds:

Regarding 1 Tim 2:11 where a woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness, you included the following commentary from John Calvin, "...and he would have them learn in silence, and not offer to rise and speak, under a pretence of having a word from the Lord, or of being under an impulse of the Spirit of the Lord, as some frantic women have done; and if they should meet with anything, under the ministry of the word, they did not understand, or they had an objection to, they were not to speak in public, but ask their own husbands at home..."

Does this mean that I Timothy 2:11 and 12 prohibits me from being an active participant in a coed Sunday School class since it is in a church setting, a man is leading the class, and other men are attending? Am I not allowed to speak during the study of the Scriptures in Sunday School or not allowed to give testimony as to how the Lord has spoken to me concerning the study of Scripture for concern that I am sinning by possibly teaching a man?

I can see clearly in a worship service setting that there isn't a problem since no one speaks during the sermon, but how can this Scripture be accurately applied to a Sunday School setting since teaching and learning are the thrust of Sunday School also?

I really do appreciate any guidance you can give to my questions. I know that you are a busy person. Thanks!

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous,

Excellent question. Our fallen world certainly causes us to wonder about unique situations. For example, what if a woman was saved but her husband was not, is she supposed to seek answers to her questions about God’s Word from one who has not the Holy Spirit in Him (Her Husband)?

My personal understanding on this passage (I would never presume to speak for others, especially those who have passed – Calvin) causes me to conclude that men should always “teach” the Scriptures to men in the local church. But I think your question has to do with a coed class (since men are in their I would argue a man should teach) and a woman sharing her thoughts on a passage in the class. Perhaps some will say I am inconsistent (and that’s fine I would just ask for prayer if that’s true) but I see a difference between a teacher (a place of authority) sharing his thoughts on a passage and a class member (not necessarily a place of authority) sharing hers, thus I do not have a problem with the latter.

Hope this helps…and please know this is simply my understanding of the passage. I encourage you and all to study the passage yourself and seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance as to the meaning of the text. It seems obvious to me, but I am human and therefore errant.

God bless
BR

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I know your plate is full, but I really am interested in the passage where David distinguishes between God's chosen (as you interpret pastors) and God's not chosen. If you get the time, would you mind shooting that over. I'm always interested in learning something new about the Scriptures - which seems to be every day. :)

Thanks brother,

PTL

posttinebraelux said...

Selah,
Well spoken; I can add no more. Would that we all spoke with such grace.

Good morrow,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

PTL
David’s distinction had to do with the chosen of God (Jews) and those exalted to special positions of authority by God (the anointed). The passages were 1 Samuel 24:6 and 1 Samuel 26:9.

Please forgive my tardiness here…I really thought I had responded this morning but as I look through the comments I see I had not (old age:)
BR

brad reynolds said...

PTL
I may be unclear here. I am assuming that David made a distinction between Saul (the Lord's anointed) and the rest of God's chosen people based on the position God placed Saul in...otherwise I do not know why he would designate Saul as such.
BR

Cliff4JC said...

David,

Concerning your earlier comment to Dr. Reynolds:

"brad, when will people see that we are just trying to be obedient to what the bible clearly teaches on this issue?"

I can't speak for everyone, but I am trying to do just that! I am trying to make sure I know what the Bible teaches in this area. I think Dr. Reynolds & CB would both agree that this is a difficult and sometimes gray area for us. How does 1 Tim apply properly to the seminary?

Dr. Reynolds,

I think you have helped me in some of the other areas. However, I think that if you stop to pray/think through the supposed difference of teaching Greek and teaching sacred music, you might change your mind. Which class will deal with theology most? Which class will deal with the interpretation of scripture most? CB really does have a strong point here.

Still seeking...

P.S. Why do you dignify certain posters with a response?

Joy,
Cliff

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
Let me make sure I understand you correctly. You are citing 2 passages in 1 Sam. where David refers to Saul as 'God's annointed' as defense that pastors share the same 'annointing' that the kings of Israel did?
I would like to agree with you - I really would - but I'm really having a tough time equating the 'annointing' of the kings of Israel, under which the Israelites operated under the economy of a theocracy with saying that a pastor of a church shares that same annointing.
Do I believe that the new testament teaches that there are special blessings (crowns?) that go along with being a shepherd of a church? Absolutely!
Do I think that Dr. Patterson shares the same annointing as Saul or David? I do not and I think it's a bit of a stretch to make that leap. I'm shooting from the hip here, but wasn't Saul annointed by Samuel? I know David was, but I can't remember about Saul.
Certainly Dr. Patterson, Christian giant though he may be, has received no annointing from an old Testament Judge/Prophet?
Do you think me way off base here? I'm truly not trying to be argumentative, but I think the passage may have been done disservice.

Grace to you as always my brother,

PTL

brad reynolds said...

Cliff,
I try to respond to all, but I must confess I think at times I cross a proverbial line in doing so; I excuse it by trying to be courteous to everyone.

I don't think you can teach Greek or Hebrew real effectively without reading Greek and Hebrew and Scriptures are the best place to read. Further, with reading comes an evaluation (TEACHING) of what was read...thus the teaching of Scriptures.

And I think the teaching of others' inspired words (hymns) is simply not the same as teaching God's inspired Word.

I must confess our culture has certainly influenced me and I am trying to set that aside as I look to Scripture...I feel certain you are doing the same my brother.

God Bless
BR

brad reynolds said...

PTL
my point was not to equate pastoring with the King's of Israel but to say that there was a distinction between those who had been placed in special areas of authority by God and those who had not. The positions of authority demand respect.

Now perhaps I am stretching things a little but again I like to err on the side of caution and I would much rather give "men of God" and those placed in authoritative positions by God a certain recognition of respect as such; than to do otherwise.

The point seems to be that you think I should make no distinction, but even Paul distinguished between the HP and others. In other words even in the NT age it appears Paul felt fine in reviling others but not in reviling the HP.

My point is that we should obviously always treat all with Christian love. Further, we should realize as we do to others so we do unto Christ. However, I think there is a certain added respect that we should have for those in positions of authority and for Men of God.

Finally, I think Louw and Nida's Greek Lexicon helps in pointing out that the word for anointed (a word Paul used of Himself) speaks of the assignment of a special task to an individual, who is endowed supernaturally to fulfill that task. Hence, Paul's call to the Gentiles.

Hope this helps
BR

selahV said...

Brad: It's not old age taxing your memory, daddy. It's the desire to be all things to all people at all times while trying to do what you really want to do. Hold Kelton and give quality time to your wife. It's hard to be a man these days. SelahV

posttinebraelux said...

Brad,
I, too, think that the pastoral position is one of special esteem to God, I just can't make the leap to equating them to the kings of Israel.
Now, as to how we should treat pastors as opposed to others, I'm not sure they are afforded that honor by Paul or other NT writers. On the contrary, it is the widows, orphans, persons in prison, destitute, etc. who we are commanded to afford special attention. If there was any 'group' of people with whom I would feel most uncomfortable 'dissing' (to use a contemporary metaphor), it would be children.
We shall agree to disagree on this issue my brother. I just can't equate Dr. Patterson with Saul or David - great man though he may be.

Grace and good evening to you brother,

PTL

Jeffro said...

Brad,

Thank you for answering at least part of my question. I believe the logic is...because no one thought that women should teach men before the feminist movement, then women should not teach men. Is this not faulty logic? For instance, I am a Calvinist, but I am not a Calvinist because the SBC was founded by a majority of Calvinists. I am a Calvinist because I believe that it is the best doctrinal explanation of soteriology, which also provides the basis for a consistent Christian worldview. I am not a Calvinist because Boyce was, or Spurgeon, or Carl Henry. I am a Calvinist because I believe it is sound doctrine.

Now to the issue at hand. I know nothing of this lady at Southwestern. I know nothing of the situation. Most of us are in the same boat. I am honestly not sure what I think about her teaching Hebrew. But the question is not can a woman teach a man training for ministry Hebrew...The question is based on your logic, "What can a woman teach?" I don't know the answer.

As usual...I will end with a question. Would Dr. Patterson you, Dr. Reynolds, be willing to let a single woman be an international missionary? If so, please explain.

God Bless,

brad reynolds said...

PTL
Please re-read my comment...I was not equating them to the Kings of Israel. There is special honor to pastors since one is not to believe an accusation against them unless there are two witnesses (this standard is not given to those who are not pastors). But the Bible certainly gives special place to the poor, the widows, and orphans.
Yet, I don't think it negates the other observations I tried to make.
Not sure we disagree as much as you seem to think, but that's ok.
BR

Anonymous said...

Brad,

In regard to your question:

"Should our Seminaries be like the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond?"

In my opinion, the answer is an emphatic "no!" Personally, I have no desire for our seminaries to be where they were 30 years ago (theologically)... which is exactly where seminaries such as BTSR and Truett are today (both of which ironically have women teaching theological and/or biblical studies). God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

brad reynolds said...

Jeffro
Good Questions.

One must either assume that for 1900 years ALL conservative commentators were clouded by their male-dominated culture in interpreting 1 Timothy or that for the last 100 years SOME (by no means an overwhelming majority) conservative commentators are clouded by their women's rights culture. I choose to assume the latter, for obvious reasons.

As to your question concerning women M’s, I would never speak for Dr. Patterson, my personal belief is that sharing Christ is different from teaching in a local church, so I am very supportive of women missionaries and their sharing of Christ with others.

Concerning what women can teach, my personal opinion again, is that I am most comfortable with the current practices in our seminaries.
BR

volfan007 said...

hey brad,

now, over at another blog that you dont like to be mentioned, a fella is saying that 1 tim. 2 is talking about women needing to teach men correctly. lol. so, as long as they are teaching the bible correctly, its ok.

our culture is really reeking havoc on our churches.

david

brad reynolds said...

David
Truly Sad
BR

brad reynolds said...

Selah
Thanks:)
I have been sitting by my wife and holding Kelton tonight (which makes for slow typing, especially since I am also trying to read as well as watch the movie Simon Birch:)
BR

Jeffro said...

Brad,

I am also comfortable with the current practices of our seminaries, as well as, the current practices of our convention. I am not for widening the tent. However, I am not for narrowing it either. Leave the tent alone, I say.

What do single missionary ladies like Lottie Moon do on the mission field, when they lead men to Christ, but have no man to install as pastor or elder over them?

I know what Lottie Moon did. If my information is correct she taught the entire congregation, but made the men sit behind her.

My only concern is that we don't do away with godly women like Lottie Moon in the IMB or NAMB based on this view of 1 Tim. 2.

CB Scott said...

Brad,

I know you read my comments, but for the record please let it be known that all the personalities I spoke of at SEBTS was in a good light. I think the professors I mentioned are "top drawer" so I would ask you to acknowledge that fact.

Now, I am sticking to the issues. The comparison of TBSR to any of our seminaries is without merit. It would even be without merit to compare TBSR with the old SEBTS. Our seminaries are actually seminaries. The other is questionable at best.

Your speaking of the seminary at Richmond clouds the real issue. The real issue is the questionable ethics of SWBTS in relation to Dr. Klouda.

My mentioning of the fact of any seminary discipline being taught by a seminary professor having to address Scripture and theology is valid. We teach a biblical world view in all of our seminaries. Therefore, ALL professors must address both Scripture and theology. If they do not they should be fired.

Your speaking of the "degree" to which they speak of Scripture and theology is not the point. The Bible does not speak to degrees or amounts of Scripture or theology a woman can teach in a seminary. It does not speak to teaching in a seminary in any chapter or verse.

A seminary is a parachurch organization. It is not a local church. The probitions of women in in positions are related to the local church.

You know my position on women pastors and deacons. It is like yours. We are not talking about a pastor or a deacon in a local church. We are talking about the treatment of a Christian by other Christians in a parachurch organization.

A seminary is not an extention of a local church. It is a parachurch entity established to teach the disciplines of ministry to those that seek to minister in and through the local church. A seminary that seeks to be a local church would cease to function in the manner for which it was established.

Only a local church can be a local church. Seminary presidents are not pastors and faculty members are not deacons.

When Faith teams go out from the seminary to evangelize the community they seek to get those that come to faith in Christ to join one of the local churches in the area. They do not ask the new believer to join the seminary.

Could the seminary baptize the new convert in accordance with Scripture? NO. That is the commission of a local church.

A seminary is a parachurch institution established for the training of those called to minister in the local church and through the local church. It is not an extension of a local church. It is not a local church.

It does not function like a local church, but it is to operate within the moral and ethical manner as taught by the local church. What has happened in this situation is far from what a local church would teach as Christian conduct. (A true N.T. church is of what I speak)

This is not about TBSR vs. Six real SBC seminaries. It is about the ethical treatment of our brothers and sisters in the "market place" of life.

cb

Anonymous said...

Brad,

Here is the problem with this situation, and the problem that recurs in denominational life: Inconsistency!!!

I have no problem with determining from Scripture that a woman should not teach a man! The Bible teaches this. I do have a problem with the lack of consistentcy in which this is being applied.

1. You state that the passage teaches the situation of a local church and since the seminary teaches pastors, then it should follow the spirit of scripture. Great, but the Bible also says "teach or have authority" PLEASE do not gloss over the text. If we are going to be consistent, there should be not 1 female sitting as a trustee of any SBC entity. This is a position of authority. If you are going make all seminaries accuntable to this text, do it with consistentcy.

2. You stated: "And I think the teaching of others' inspired words (hymns) is simply not the same as teaching God's inspired Word."

Brad, I am not using this word pejoratively, but are you that ignorant what is taught in the music department? Please go over to the book store and look at the books that are prescribed for the classes that a future pastors take on worship and music. You do not sit in class for an hour learning "words to hymns". There definitly is a theology of worship and it is taught!

TC

brad reynolds said...

Jeffro
Good Words
BR

brad reynolds said...

CB
I gladly will state you have held my colleagues in high esteem here. You always have. I am just uncomfortable with naming colleagues here.

According to your logic women should teach in all areas of seminary, for all areas deal with Scripture to a certain degree, and seminaries are parachurch organizations – although they are unlike most other parachurch organizations for their bosses are the local churches of the SBC.

Let’s just say I disagree, I don’t think women should teach men how to pastor. Let me state I affirm our seminaries in this area and would disagree with BTSR who would agree with you on this and you know it my brother.
BR

brad reynolds said...

TC
Consistency is the KEY.

To claim that only men should be pastors and then have women teach men how to be pastors is inconsistent. Thank God our seminaries are not inconsistent like that.

Further, the it appears to me that the seminaries’ not permitting a woman to teach men how to pastor is not necessarily based on 1 Tim. 2:12 but rather on the belief that men should be pastors…thus the point made about teaching is not necessarily applicable. Although I would state it is my opinion that women should teach men in a local church.

Finally, my office is in Broyhill (Where the music faculty are); I eat with music faculty at least once a week; and we do discuss issues. Point being I am familiar with the curriculum. And while you may disagree I would state that a “theology of worship” is not the same as Systematic Theology and the study of hymns is not the same as the study of Scripture…but if you believe they are the same then as a good Baptist I say, so be it, as I affirm soul-competency.
BR

brad reynolds said...

My brother Bart Barber

I read your blog this morning (along with some of my other favorites). Thank you for your Christian example. Others could learn from it.
BR

Wade Burleson said...

I find it refreshing when Southern Baptists who blog make an assertion as if it were fact, are then proven wrong, and humbly acknowledge their error.

A missionary in the Middle East asked you on your last post(seventh comment down) if, "after discovering Burleson's bog is correct (see here, will you be working to resolve the injustice?"

A good question. Sometimes we Southern Baptist lose sight of people who have been hurt in order to simply promote our ideology. Graced people have soft hearts. We have a fund established to help Dr. Klouda. I would encourage you and your readers to help.

Blessings,

Wade Burleson

selahV said...

Brad: Went over and visited Bart's site. Very interesting angle on how to handle issues with which we are in conflict. Integrity.

By the way, I've posted a blog from which I'd love to have the input of women. Especially your lovely wife who's just found out the immense joy of motherhood. (and a few quirky things that aren't so joyous...sleep deprivation). When she gets a moment between loving on Kelton and assuring you that you are the main man in her life, perhaps she can take a peek and respond. Thanks. SelahV

Cliff4JC said...

Dr. Reynolds,

I'm not saying I'm much better, (shoot, I don't even have a position on this yet!), but you are doing some hermeneutical & logical gymnastics with your rationale of why women can teach in some areas of seminary and where they can't. :) Again, at least you know what you believe here my friend...so you are probably doing better than a waffler like me! LOL

Still searching...

One other thing; did CB just call Dr. Alvin Reid, and the rest of the faculty at SEBTS a bunch of dingy socks? (That's what’s in my top drawer CB! :) Sorry, it's my day off...I'm feeling silly.

Joy,
Cliff

brad reynolds said...

Cliff

I think the same could be said (inconsistent) even more forcefully for those who believe only men should pastor but women can teach them how to pastor at our seminaries.

Also, if I may be so bold let me recommend white socks and clorox bleach for your top drawer:)
BR

CB Scott said...

Brad,

Thank you for affirming my appreciation of your colleagues there at SEBTS. I do consider them all "TOP DRAWER":-)


Now, Brad, I did not say women should be able to teach in ALL disciplines of seminary life. I do not even believe ALL men are able to teach any discipline in seminary. You may or may not have heard me state my position relating to that matter when we were together there.

I do not believe a man with little or no experience as a pastor should teach in any discipline that relates DIRECTLY to the ministry of a pastor. One cannot truly teach others of that to which he knows little or nothing from experience. That is an area of weakness, in particular, of our institutions and it is having an effect in the church fields of the SBC.

Therefore, due to the fact that I do not believe a woman is a biblical candidate for the role of pastor in the local church, it stands to reason that I do not believe a woman should teach any discipline that is DIRECTLY related to the position of local church pastor.

Not all disciplines taught at seminary relate DIRECTLY to the position of local church pastor. Some disciplines such as Christian music, Languages,(both biblical and contemporary) Counseling,(not pastoral counseling) Christian Education, Christian School Administration and Christian School teaching, etc. can be taught by women if the woman teaches from a proper biblical worldview.

If she teaches from a biblical worldview she must address Scripture and theology as it applies to the discipline she teaches. If she does not do so, she should be fired and be replaced by a woman or man that will address Scripture and theology while teaching a seminary discipline from the position of a biblical worldview.

My logic will not allow a woman to teach ALL disciplines in a seminary setting. My logic will not allow any man to teach ALL disciplines in a seminary.

I do not believe pastoral counseling should be taught by a man that has little or no experience as a full-time pastor.
Again, NO MAN with little or no experience as a pastor should teach ANY discipline that relates directly to the position of local church pastor.

My logic would eliminate many men teaching pastoral disciplines today. I will honor your desire to name no one, but a review of seminary faculties will reveal what I am speaking of relating to those teaching without proper experience. The greater understanding of the position is gained on the "hard rock" of experience.

How can a man truly teach of going where he has never been? From books? From stories of others that have been in the field? Not hardly. To teach pastoral disciplines you have to have "been there."

There is a great problem out in the field due to young pastors having been taught the disciplines of a pastor from someone that speaks only from theories and books.

There is really a great problem in the area of pastoral counseling out in the field due to pastors being taught that particular discipline by those that have no experience as a pastor.

So, Brad, my position on who teaches what is stronger than many we both know, is it not?

The issue is not who teaches what. The issue is an issue of Christian ethics in the actions of Christians toward another Christian. Plain and simple, that is all there is to it. No number of "strawmen" built by anyone will erase that reality which is before us as Southern Baptists.

cb

brad reynolds said...

CB

I agree with the practices of our seminaries.

My question for you. Do you think that a woman should teach pastors the Scriptures?

Would you agree that the best way to teach a dead language (one which is not spoken - thus conversational teaching does not occur) is by having them read the language? Would you not agree that the best place to read Biblical Hebrew would be the Bible? Would you not agree that correcting students as they read the Hebrew Bible is teaching them the Scriptures?

Just so you know where I stand my brother. I think my logic as well as the logic of our seminary Presidents flows well.
BR

CB Scott said...

Brad,

Did you read my last comment? If so you have the answer to your question.

My position is much stronger than yours about who should teach various disciplines in seminaries.

You have avoided my questions more than once. Or maybe you are not reading them. I hope it is the latter.

Again, I said to teach languages would be OK for a women to teach in our seminaries. (BTW, you do not have to tell me what a dead language is. I can go toe to toe with you any day there, Dr. Reynolds.)

I identified Languages (Both biblical and contemporary) as teachable for women. I state my position very plainly. On the other hand, do you believe a man with little or no pastoral experience should teach in the pastoral disciplines?

One more thing about Bible being taught in seminaries: It should be in the core curriculum of EVERY seminary degree that Bible should be taken every semester. This survey method employed in our seminaries is poor. To allow the Bible to be an elective beyond the core survey classes is a shame and disgrace.

Furthermore, It should be a man that has preached the Bible as a pastor in a local church that teaches those type classes.

To teach the "mechanics" of a "dead" language is very different than teaching the Bible in an exegetical, hermeneutical, and expositional manner. Anyone that has taken more than a core curriculum survey of the Bible recognizes the truth of that very easily.

One of the problems in the field is that pastors do not preach the Bible because they are not educated in what the Bible says.

Far too many of these guys that are so called "great language professors" cannot convey the Scripture in an expositional manner before an average congregation if their lives depended on it, and frankly, someone's life always depends on it.

We need MEN that have spent their lives with the Bible, both preaching it and living it to teach the Bible in the disciplines I mentioned earlier.

Do you agree or disagree?

The Klouda issue is not about what she taught. It is about what we as her brothers and sisters are teaching others by either being involved in what happened to her or by sitting by and letting it happen.

There is always a "hidden curriculum" taught during seminary days and sometimes it "sticks" with us more than the planned scope and sequence of the classes we take to get a degree.

What are the hidden lessons our students have or will have learned from this situation we find ourselves in relating to Dr. Sheri Klouda?

Brad, please rethink this with Christian compassion and godly sorrow. Are we straining at gnats and swallowing camels? What about mercy, grace, kindness, and gentleness toward this woman and family? Please don't tell me she got a nice severance from the seminary. Dignity has a far greater worth than money to a honorable person and for those who do not understand that concept, they will learn it someday. You can take that to the bank.

cb

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
brad reynolds said...

Don
Glad you stopped by my brother. I pray all is well. Since this blog has to do with my personal opinions and not the opinions of the church I pastor I felt it would be best to handle your comment via e-mail. Please send it to me and I will be glad to respond.
BR

Anonymous said...

Brad,
I'd be happy to. Your profile does not contain an email address, so here is mine dcockes@sbcv.org.

Blessings, Don Cockes

Jon L. Estes said...

Brad,

I struggle with:

1 - the idea that seems to want to equates the seminary to the church.

2 - the idea that teaching the Hebrew language in a seminary is equal with preparing them for the pastorate.

3 - the fact that we are willing to take the money of women and teach them great things and enable them to be more than qualified to teach, then tell them to be quiet. Why did Criswell College train (BA and Masters degrees) Dr. Klouda? To prepare her for what? Why did SWBTS take her money and give her a doctorate to later tell her it is no good here (my words and take on the action)?

Man, you know me, I am not one to push to broaden the tent but to compare the keeping of Dr. Klouda to being like BTSR is way off.