Earlier this month an editorial was published in the Baptist Standard by Marv Knox. It made some interesting points that I would like to interact with. You can find the article here.
The assumption that the election was an overwhelming victory for those of the Texas Baptists Committed is amazing to me. Their candidate won the election by a mere 60 votes. 60. It is not a landslide at all, in fact it is statement the other direction. That almost half of the messengers felt that a candidate who was only announced as a candidate approximately a week earlier, is a statement of lack of support in the establishment rather than a vote for it.
However, I really want to address the three points that Knox gives as reasons that he doesn't think the loss will be great.
Here are my reasons why I think it will.
- Baptists are uninformed. The general member sitting in the pew of a typical BGCT church is uninformed of the typical events within the political, educational, or doctrinal world of the BGCT and its affiliated universities and seminaries. Most Texas Baptists sitting in the pew, hold to the inerrancy and authority of the Scripture. When brought to light that the inerrancy question is the dividing point with the SBC for most of the leadership in the BGCT, it comes as a surprise because most of them do. It is also evident that most of the churches within the BGCT were absent from the convention and didn't even send a single messenger. So not only are the individuals in the pew uninformed of the issues, so is leadership in a large number of local churches. This is most likely due to pastors being too consumed with the life of the church (which is not a bad thing). But had they been there, would things have been different? Perhaps.
- The election of a woman as president WAS unbibical. Regardless of resume, yes, Mrs. Fenner's is impressive, the biblical fact that women are not permitted to lead is quite evident. From 1 Timothy 2.9-14 to 3.1-15, the biblical model is that the role of pastor is reserved for men. Women have roles to play as well, though not in a leadership or authority position. Last I checked, president of an ecclesial body is just that. The introduction by Charles Wade of Mrs. Fenner as the next president to "lead our churches" sends the message that she is the leader of the churches of the BGCT, and its spokesperson. Also, when we have young people who are looking to the ministry, and they see one in leadership who is a woman, it conveys to ministerial students that it IS biblical and is a natural progression. Most Texas Baptists see this, as a liberal step that other denominations have gone down, and are now in a quandary over. Why doesn't anyone else see that the next step is the open door policy allowing homosexuals to take leadership in the pulpits?
- The church, founded on biblical principles, won't stand for it. Whether or not women will stand for it is irrelevant. The church must seek the truth of Scripture, and apply it to the lives of individuals. One of these truths is church discipline. There is no accountability at the individual level, which affects the church, association, and yes, the state level. Holding individuals to a high level of doctrinal integrity amongst the individual, church, associational, and state levels is a necessary practice that should be reinstated.
The men, in our churches have for too long taken the back seat to our ladies in the area of lay ministry by not taking the initiative to become proactive in teaching/training men to spiritually lead their families and churches in evangelism and service ministries. We are now paying the price for our lack of commitment in completing the Great Commission, just baptizing them and not discipling them.
Once the church educates its membership to the issues involved, and the men become involved in the ministry, mission and leadership of the church, then there will be a change.
At 10:20 PM, 
Lee,
Thanks for your comments. And your insight.
I agree that the the BGCT is not an ecclesial body that directs our churches. It is an autonomous body. To most of those who are aware, the president really doesn't affect policy, particularly in the BGCT. The Texas Baptist Committed (TBC) have a greater influence in this arena, making the president basically a puppet of their choosing.
However, the president does represent those churches as its spokesperson and administrator, as well as servant. While there is no biblical warrant for the position of president. What is the testimony we are trying to convey? That we are open to all who want to serve, men, women,"alternative lifestyles"?
Yet I will have to agree with your post on the same article (which is excellent), this isn't the main reason so many churches will withdraw from the BGCT. Most of it is doctrinal. Many of the writings of the professors in BGCT universities and seminaries are putting forward a Open Theism theology, and women serving as senior pastors, which most disagree with. (my pastor tried to get a resolution to the floor denouncing Open Theism, but the Res. committee told him it was too controversial and wouldn't allow it)
So it is that and then some.
Again thanks for your input. I'm humbled that anybody would read this.lol.
At 8:23 AM,
Paul Duncan-
I'm coming to believe this philosophy of ministry in which autonomy trumps Scripture will be the Achilles' heel of the BGCT. Scripture has always been the final authority of faith and practice for the Christian. To say a woman cannot lead a church and then say she can lead a group of cooperating churches is double talk. I understand the argument for her as president and how it is consistent for many moderate Baptists. But for a conservative Baptist her election is inconsistent.
At 11:50 AM,
Don't get me wrong, I see your point. But I see this particular election as part of the diversity kick that they've been on in recent years, to justify the continued existence of a political group in the convention. It was necessary to elect a hispanic, and then an African-American because we hadn't done that before, and now a woman. I see the office as purely servant oriented, and not "leading" anything. If I thought that it was the same thing as serving as a pastor, and it was violating scripture, I'd make more of a fuss. I'm just very reluctant to make this position more than I think it is.
On the other hand, I think there is a real need to be concerned about the enthusiasm with which some of our executive board, officers and administrators have jumped into the Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant. Now there is a doctrinal nightmare. Even at that, if they want to participate as individual Baptists, that's their decision, but don't make it look like you are doing it on behalf of the BGCT. I believe, however, that they need to keep in mind the fact that their association with individuals who believe the New Testament is myth of the same kind as that spread by the followers of Mohammed and Buddha, or that there are other ways to God besides Christ, or that everyone is saved because of the nature of God, may lead me to question their leadership of the BGCT, and that I may respond accordingly.
I think the BGCT is going to see a significant loss of CP support, but not many more churches will actually leave the convention itself. The other convention has some negative points as well, and that has caused some churches to rethink departure. More and more, they are just giving more to the SBC and less to the BGCT.
Keep writing your blog. It's good stuff.
The whole issue of a woman being a pastor has always bothered me. It was the way I was reared. Men were pastors, women were pastors wives or Sunday School teachers. This has actually been a hot topic on other blogs that I frequent.
I started looking at the passages in 1 Timothy and I'm still working it out but it all the bru-ha-ha for me comes from two little words.
"I want..."
"Therefore, I WANT (emphasis mine) men in everyplace to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissention..."
So is man sinning of he is not praying in everyplace, lifting up holy hands in everyplace, and he is at odds with his brother?
For example, I'm sitting in Hasting's Books right now, but my hands are on a computer, not in the air? Am I sinning? My eyes are focused on a computer screen and my daughter doing her homework, but not closed in prayer--am I sinning?
"I WANT woment to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair, gold or pearls or costly garments..."
What was the proper clothing for women at the time Paul wrote this epistle? My wife wears a gold wedding band--is she sinning? My youngest daughter wore braided hair to school the other morning? Is she going to hell?
In verse 12, the phrasing changes from "I want to:
"I do not allow a women to teach or exercise authority over man, but to remain quiet."
I working on who is Paul talking to, why he is addressing this, and the society of the day.
Is it possible that these are Paul's opinions? Is it possible that this is a normal practice for that society?
I'm not a bible scholar like most of you...but these are my questions that I'm researching and finding out. I've heard both sides of the arguement. My position will not change--I do not believe that a woman should be pastor. As Paul states, I do not think that it is in the natural order--man was created 1st and that. I would have a hard time telling a woman pastor that my innermost secrets.
So, the BGCT has a woman president?
Is Hillary next?
Matt,
Best I could do would be refer ya to my pastor's sermon blog. He is working through the I Timothy passage you refer too. You can find it here
http://pastorpaul.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/praying-for-all-people-1-timothy-28/
and on women here
http://pastorpaul.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/the-beautiful-woman-1st-timothy-29-15/
I may post later on it myself, but he does a really good job.
Aaron
I'll agree with you that a lot of our churches, and the people in the pew, do not know what is going on in the convention administration. And you are right on target about churches not sending messengers and not showing up for the conventions being the reason things are the way they are. Why would you send some of your precious tithes and offerings without sending someone to offer accountability for the way they are used?
I have to disagree, though, that Joy Fenner's election as President of the BGCT violates the scriptural provision that a woman cannot serve as a pastor. Being president of a Baptist convention, which is, in the Baptist tradition an independent, autonomous body that is not ecclesiastical in nature, but voluntary and cooperative, is not the equivalent of being a senior pastor in a church. She is not serving as a pastor, and the presidency of the BGCT has no authority over any individual church, nor over any other entity related to the BGCT. Neither the convention as an organization, nor the office of its president is a scripturally created position. If it were, it would be out of step with the Baptist perspective of cooperative missions. Essentially, she is a former missionary who is serving a missions organization. It isn't even an authoritative role, the PResident of the BGCT is a servant of the convention and its churches.