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)