David Waters post Southern Baptists and their Gender Double-Standard over at On Faith claims that Southern Baptists have a double-standard when it comes to the new republican VP pick.  His claim is basically that Southern Baptists shouldn’t promote and vote for Sarah Palin, a woman, since we wouldn’t let her pastor a church.  So what’s his argument and objection?

Now that Southern Baptist leaders are embracing the idea of a woman leading this nation, will they rethink their rejection of the idea of a woman leading their congregations?

Probably not.

Since Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states the position that women are not to be pastors there’s really no probably about it.

…the SBC’s Richard Land — who said he is “ecstatic” about the selection of Sarah Palin as Republican candidate for vice president — threw holy water on any notion that a woman he considers qualified to lead the free world can lead him in prayer and worship.

The funny thing is that this is not what Land said.  There are women in SBC churches that lead in prayer and that lead in worship, if by worship the connotation is singing hymns and spiritual songs.  If by worship he means pastor then the statement is correct, however, for some churches simply leading worship doesn’t mean the pastor is the one always doing it.  What Land actually said here in reference to Waters’ above statement is actually quoted by Waters in the next paragraph.

“The only restrictions we find in Scripture are, that for whatever reason women are not to be in charge of a marriage and women are not to be in charge of a church,” explained Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “That has nothing to do with governor, or senator or the House of Representatives, or president, or vice president.”

So here Land lays out his position with qualifications yet he’s charged with holding to a double-standard?  Since when is a church and a home the same as political office?  Some politicians may think they’re reverends and such, but that’s a different topic.  Waters then attempts to build his case.

It has a lot to do with the men who took control of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s. Previous Southern Baptist faith statements set no gender limits on the office of pastor. In fact, it wasn’t until 2000…

And?  The 1925 statement has the least amount of text so should it never have been changed or do we just change what outsiders deem appropriate?  Different issues need to be addressed so they were added and some of those additions were simply putting into words what was already practiced and believed.  Slavery was not part of any historic confession as I recall yet the Convention has been frowned upon for its relationship to slavery in the past.  Waters continues his case.

Of course, there are countless Christians (men and women) who believe these biblical ‘restrictions’ have been misinterpreted, and are no more applicable than biblical ‘restrictions’ on eating pork, selling your daughter into slavery or resisting evil.

And there are, of course, countless who believe that the Old Testament Sundry Laws aren’t as applicable as the restrictions of men for the pastoral office.  In fact, since we are talking about the SBC, of their 40,000 plus churches a vast majority agree with my statement.  I raise Waters one assertion for another, but in context.  I know people try to draw parallel’s to the OT laws in comparison to NT restrictions concerning woman, however, I have to wonder who argues for comparative applicability.  And resisting evil?  I’d like to know how that fits in this context.  We certainly resist evil in the church age.

The SBC’s current gender restriction was based on short verses from I Corinthians and Timothy, including this line in I Cor. 14:34: “The women should keep silence in the churches.

Short verses?  So what?  We don’t build our theological positions based on how short a verse is.  The verse “Jesus wept” has been very powerfully preached to the edification of the church.  But maybe we should just not pay attention to the implications of this verse because it’s too “short.”

Waters goes on to quote Russell Dilday on the word “silent” in 1 Corinithians on how there are different interpretations.  Then goes on to quote the BFM2000’s addition of the wife submitting to her husband.  Which spurs this question by Waters.

What’s a governor and married mother of five to do?

I think she should go on being governor.  Isn’t that what she’s been doing?  Besides, Palin is not Southern Baptist and we are not voting on a position within the Southern Baptist Convention.

It always has amused me that there seems to be only one fundamental on which the male leaders of conservative Roman Catholic, evangelical and pentecostal Protestant, Mormon, Orthodox Jewish and Muslim denominations all agree: A woman cannot lead their congregations or denominations.

So?  What do these other organization have to do with trying to apply claim Southern Baptists are operating on a double-standard?  Let them answer for themselves.  Besides, there were women on the BF&M2000 committee helping decide the current theological positions.

How do these guys keep a straight face? How do they explain this to their American daughters: “Honey, in America you can grow up to be anything you want, except the pastor of our church.”

This has already been explain by Richard Land whom Waters quoted as well as others he mentioned.  My daughter and wife both understand this and I didn’t have to convince them.  There was nothing to explain away.  And if it meant that much to them they could always leave the SBC and go try and pastor a churhc in another demonination that would except them.

After Palin’s selection, it will be interesting to see how they explain this double-standard to American voters.

In this final statement we see just another assertion without proof.  Waters has not shown a double-standard.  Just because he is convinced in his own mind doesn’t make it so.  Why pick on Southern Baptists?  We’re hardly alone in this as Waters admitted.  Why the bias?  And even IF there was a double-standard who says anyone is owed an explanation for it, especially, those outside the SBC?  Our votes are going to count regardless.  Maybe that’s what Waters is really concerned about.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

(HT: Denny Burk)

My fellow church member bro. Wayne whose review of The Shack I recently posted informed me of another review of The Shack.  Michael Youssef, pastor of Church of the Apostles, one of our neighboring churches, has reviewed The Shack in a recent sermon.

Dr. Youseff’s review, Uncovering The Shack, can be downloaded directly on mp3 here.  There is also an iTunes feed if you’re interested.  He actually stopped in the middle of a sermon series to review this book because he thought it was that important.

Dr. Youseff begins, “In the 33 years since I’ve was ordained to the ministry, I remember, only, this is to be the third time of all 33 years that I have taken sermon time.  The entire sermon time to focus on a book.”  He explains that his responsibility as an under shepherd to feed the flock as well as protect them from false teaching.

Another excellent quote as he begins, “I want to warn you, especially, of books and teachings that are almost right, but devastatingly wrong.  Teachings and preachings and b0oks that have a measure of truth in them, but they’re wrapped in a whole lot of poisonous dough.”

AMEN!

Mark

Peter Smith of the courier-journal out of Louisville gives us an interesting story morning Married, ex-Baptist minister to become Catholic priest.  Sad, but interesting story about former baptist pastor David Harris converting to Catholicism.  So why the question “Roman Catholic Baptist?”  Smith’s story begins.

David Harris never considered his conversion to Catholicism six years ago to be a rejection of the Baptist faith that nourished him from childhood in Eastern Kentucky.

How does a man with an M. Div. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary  come to this conclusion?  I understand that there are areas in our seminaries that need improvement, but I didn’t think that theological education touching on what Rome teaches vs. what Southern Baptists’ teach was one such area.  Nor did it seem that Rome was so unclear on the issue since calling us “separated brethren” sure tells us something is amiss from their position.

What is interesting is that he will be a married Roman Catholic priest.  Since the Vatican will be giving Harris approval on this I doubt much, if any, opposition will be seen.  Another interesting observation from a Catholic spiritual director is the very argument I’ve heard used as a reason why priests should be allowed to marry is practical experience.

“He understands what it’s like to be married, to have children, to have that life, besides being a very spiritual person”

Harris is own pope?

Protestants get charged with being their own pope as basis for their spiritual, theological and biblical interpretive decisions.  You can see one of many examples in Steve Hays’ post Self-popery where he answers the charge.  So what of Harris? On whose authority did he submit to Rome?  Not only on his own authority, but it seems that it was his experience that drew him.

Harris said he was captivated by its vision of a deep contemplative prayer life and began reading more of Catholic spirituality, including works by 20th-century Kentucky author-monk Thomas Merton.

So not only do we have another warning to heed here about contemplative prayer, but this also shows that Harris was relying on self in making this decision.  Some may argue that’s a bit reductionistic, however, existentialism does reduce to self reliance.

The Lord’s Supper

I have no idea what Harris’ own thoughts are on the Lord’s Supper, but the reporter in the story states.

Baptists believe the Lord’s Supper is strictly a symbol, while Catholics see it as in essence the body and blood of Jesus.

While that statement is not necessarily inaccurate it doesn’t say enough to its readers.  Just take a look at some examples from the 1689 London Baptist Confession on the Lord’s Supper.

 …spiritual nourishment and growth in Christ, and to strengthen the ties that bind them to all the duties they owe to Him. The Lord’s supper is also a bond and pledge of the fellowship which believers have with Christ and with one another.  …a spiritual offering up of all possible praise to God for the once-for-all work of Calvary. …receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and receive all the benefits accruing from His death. This they do really and indeed, not as if feeding upon the actual flesh and blood of a person’s body, but inwardly and by faith.

Now the Roman Catholic position of transubstantiation says that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.

That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). -Catholic Encyclopedia.

There is just a greater difference than let on in the article.

On Rome’s Authority

Moving from existentialism to Rome’s teaching Harris apparently understood enough.

“I’ve come to understand enough of it that I began to believe and trust in the … teaching arm of the church”

I wonder what “enough” is?  I certainly wonder this in light of the beginning statement of not having to reject his baptist roots to become Catholic.  This again comes back to Harris himself in deciding and accepting what he sees as correct.  And if you accept “enough” does the rest just automatically follow?  I believe that if one just accepts Rome’s authority that this just may be the method of accepting all of her teachings.  I wonder if Harris would fall along the same lines as Beckwith as seen in some of James White’s questions.

I’m Okay You’re Okay

Apparently his family is supportive of his move to Rome.

His wife and sons remain Baptist, but support him…

Why?  How?  How does one’s spouse make such a drastic religious move like this alone?  Who will now be the spiritual head of the home?  Maybe his former baptist church should initiate church discipline.

“I’m real happy for him,” said his brother, Mike, of Louisa. “My brother has always had a fantastic heart for people.”

David Harris said his mother had the most difficulty with his conversion.

“At this point she’s real supportive.”

I wonder what brought Harris’ mother from a position of difficulty to support.  I would hope she’d change her mind.  Pretending that Protestants and Roman Catholics are united doesn’t make it so no matter how nice it sounds and feels.  The differences are drastic hence the current and continued divide.  Another example of why theology matters.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

Sin sells, but who’s buying?  If we were to answer this question based on the recent success of Katy Perry today vs. Katy Perry Hudson several years ago, I’d say that many are buying.  Just consider the two Christianity Today articles from back in 2001 and today in 2008.  It seems as though Hudson, though appealing in her music, came and went.  While Perry spent some time at no. 1.

Who cares, though, right?  I do for one.  And, well, her parents apparently do according to the recent Christianity Today article linked above.  Quoting the artist’s mother.

I hate the song… It clearly promotes homosexuality and its message is shameful and disgusting. Katy knows how I feel. We are a very outspoken family.

I can’t even listen to that song. The first time I heard it I was in total shock. When it comes on the radio I bow my head and pray.

Good for her mother for saying something.  How many musicians grow up in a Christian home only to go on to be some sort of sexual icon and the parents either join them or stay silent?  It’s nice to finally see someone stand up and speak.

So why do I care?  I don’t particularly care for the influence this stuff has, especially, one teens.  More especially, since I have a teen daughter.  The Pew Forum study this year found that 78.4% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians.  So why won’t parents step-up and stop buying this type of music?  Are we really so busy that we can’t stop and see what our kids are doing?  Can we be a little more involved in their lives?

See, if parents don’t buy then records don’t sell and the exposure has a better chance of being minimized.  I’ve talked to parents with kids my daughter’s age and they are surprised that I don’t just lie down and let the daughter have whatever she wants with no discernment.  I’ve heard several “but” responses to which I say, “BUT, I’m the parent.”  Parents don’t normally let their kids have just or do anything and everything without using some type of discernment.  Feeding, clothing and caring for your child doesn’t stop at the fridge, clothing store and first aid kit.  Those are minor issues compared to what they are going to face.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

Without faith reasoning becomes impossible.  So do I believe this on the basis of reason or faith?  Well, it all depends on how you want to state it.  I believe it on the basis of faith, but faith which saves reasoning and, therefore, it’s the most reasonable thing to do.  So that’s my reason for having faith.  Is my intellect my ultimate authority then?  No, faith and the word of the Lord is.  And my reason for holding to that is, reason itself is destroyed if you don’t.

Do you have faith or do you have reason, Dr. Bahnsen, for being a Christian?  I say, well, it’s a matter of faith.  It’s a faith without which reasoning would be impossible.  Now since reasoning would be impossible without this faith, then ultimately the best reason according to reason is to have faith.  And those who do not have this faith destroy reason.  But that doesn’t mean that I am following Christianity because it satisfies my reasoning as the ultimate authority.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Seminary Course in Apologetics, Lecture 5.

A friend from church wrote a brief review of The Shack that touches on some key points as to why we should be cautious about this book.  Or maybe even disregard it all together.  He gave me permission to share this review.

SHACK ATTACK - OR A CALL TO DISCERNMENT?

“Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.” -Charles Spurgeon

At the encouragement of friends, I recently read The Shack by William P. Young. A national bestseller widely embraced by some churches and many professing Christians, The  Shack is a work of fiction that embodies lengthy conversations between the main character, a man named Mack, and three persons who represent a version of the Trinity.

Frankly, I was dismayed at many messages conveyed by The Shack and have been surprised that many of my Christian friends have read the book uncritically, finding it a charming and heart-warming story. Some say that it is unfair to have theological expectations since the book is fiction. However, The Shack is marketed as a spiritually transforming book, and it being received that way by many.

It seems to me that a more critical reading is required of The Shack than a secular work of fiction because the author creates characters that purport to speak as God and to guide Mack on his spiritual journey. The fictional story becomes a device to have characters representing the Godhead explain a particular theology. As believers, our spiritual antennas should be fully deployed when we approach such a book.

In The Shack, God the Father appears to Mack as a large, jovial black woman whom Mack calls “Papa.” The Holy Spirit appears as a small Asian woman, and Jesus appears as a Jewish man. Putting aside gender confusion and the attempt to give human form and voice to the Father and Holy Spirit (“no man hath seen God at any time,” John 1:8), it is critical for the Christian reader to carefully consider the message author Young has those voices bring and to weigh their message in the light of the clear teaching of the Bible. That is to exercise discernment, a requirement – not an option – for Christians.

When we read The Shack with discernment, I submit that we find many distortions and untruths. Consider just a few of the words Young puts in the mouths of his created Trinity (my comments are within the parentheses):

Papa to Mack: “We [the Trinity] have limited ourselves out of respect for you.” (Isn’t this Open Theism – God choosing to limit Himself?)

Jesus: “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things . . .” (Isn’t this Pantheism – God in all things?)

Sarayu (Young’s Sanscrit name for the Holy Spirit): “We [the Trinity] carefully respect your choices, so we work within your systems even while we seek to free you from them.” (“Neither are your ways my ways . . . my ways are higher than your ways.” Isaiah 55:8-9. Does God respect man’s choices, or does His Word demand that we repent of our ways and that we enter His narrow way?)

Sarayu: “Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence . . . Light and Good actually exist.” (Really? Does the Bible teach that evil has no actual existence? Was the biblical Jesus aware of that when He conversed with Satan in the desert temptation?)

Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Certainly there are consequences of our sin which we realize in this life and which impact other people. And certainly God has provided the cure for sin. That “cure” is the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross. Most certainly there is punishment for sin. Christ suffered the punishment for us. However, the implication of Papa’s statement is that the only punishment for sin is sin’s own punishment in a person’s life. The Bible is clear that punishment for the unredeemed, those who refuse Christ’s atonement, is the sting of spiritual death and eternal separation from God. The Shack makes light work of the cross.)

Young’s Jesus character states that he, Papa, and Sarayu are “indeed submitted to one another and have always been so and always will be . . . . In fact, we [the Trinity] are submitted to you [Mack] in the same way.” (Why, then, did the biblical Jesus submit Himself to the will of His father? Does the Bible teach submission to authority in spiritual and family and secular environments? What do you make of the claim that the Trinity is submitted to us? I believe that Young’s anti-authoritarianism is risky in human terms and that it is blasphemous to attribute such egalitarian sentiments to God.)

When requested by Papa to forgive the murderer of his young daughter, Mack balks. Papa says, “Mack, for you to forgive this man is for you to release him to me and allow me to redeem him.” (So God can only redeem those whom humans have forgiven and have released to God for redemption? The effectiveness of redemption for the unrepentant murderer is to be accomplished with Mack’s participation? Find biblical support for that, my friends!)

Christian, what about this assertion by the Jesus of The Shack? “I am the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” (This is a false Jesus. The Jesus Christ of the Bible does not say that He is the best way, He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” John 14:16. He is not the best way – He is the only way.)

The Shack evidences a low regard for Scripture. When Mack mentions biblical events or concepts, Papa brushes them off and glibly explains how it really is, thus suggesting that the Bible is the work of man, not the divinely inspired work of God. Yet, some argue that The Shack has value in that it demonstrates a loving God of grace who invites man to a relationship. But it does so with grievous distortions about the nature of God, the nature of the Trinity, the authority of God’s Word, God’s hatred of sin, the requirement of repentance, and the nature of conversion and salvation.

My brothers and sisters, even in reading and discussing a work of fiction, we must be prepared to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and to do so without apology to the world. The Shack may, from its human author’s viewpoint, be in all sincerity intended as an inviting look at a highly relational God, but would you place even a drop of poison in pure water and invite others to drink? As Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said, The Shack “contains undiluted heresy.” Don’t you and I have a responsibility to be equipped to recognize heresy and to shine the light of truth so that we and others are not deceived?

- Wayne Elliott

Download as pdf