Dr. Patterson's View of Women (Straight From the Horse's Mouth)

[Baptist born Baptist bred]

gb

so what do you think is the eschatology of Southern Baptist? postmillenial (the consensus of early Baptists); amillenial (present at SWBTS and SBTS); or premillenial.

What is Robertson position? I haven't studied his eschatology.

By the way dispensational theology can be seen in J. R. Graves who was influential from 1840s to 1870s.

 

[Baptist born Baptist bred]

gb

about your comments of a pastor, laymen or lawyer not knowing as much as a professor...

If we all took that philosophy, then the SBC resurgence would never have occurred. It was a grass roots movement against teachers of liberal viewpoints. Sometimes, the simple mind who read an inerrant Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit has the best theology.

As for Patterson not being a theologian, just because you disagree with him or because he made one or two mistakes does not mean he is not a theologian. Be fair. His library, most of which he has read, is substantially larger than any other president at SWBTS. He is the example of a theologian with a pastor's heart who focuses on evangelism and missions. Not a bad fit for president of institution that must manage teachers, train pastors, encourage evangelism, and send missionaries.

 

[Paul33]

gb,

You made an excellent point! If the SBC wants wives to stay home, then they better start paying their male staff, professors, church planters more money!

My original post was getting at the ambiguity that you are talking about. Patterson made it clear that he wasn't just referring to the role of Senior Pastor.

So what is he referring to? He said, "teaching men and 'ruling' over men in the context of the church.

If words mean anything, that should eliminate seminaries and colleges that are not under the auspices of a local church.

So SWBTS should allow women professors in any area of the seminary.

But what about the church? How far can a woman be in authority over men before she is "ruling?"

Choir director?
Children's director?
Youth leader?
Counselor?

I'm just asking for clarity. One extreme would say that a woman could not lead any ministry in which adult males are involved.

The other end of the spectrum could say that the role of Senior Pastor is off limits, but everything else is acceptable.

Or it could be somewhere in between. So what does Patterson believe?

 

[Anleifr]

That's the problem. The president's sermon/teaching never really said what women could do or not do in the ministry. His whole "sermon" promised to tell us, but he never delivered. He only said that a woman can do whatever the Bible doesn't prohibit. He mentions "pastor" only in passing, but what else? Associate pastor? Professor? Deacon? Worship leader? Missionary? He never said. Women teaching at the seminary was a huge question that the president never touched on. The silence in uneasy. What he did was lay out a vague principle and never applied it. This way (I think) he can later apply it to whatever situation he wants and say, "well, I told you so." Unfortunate.

P.S. He mentioned how he was intentionally adding to the rumour mill. I hope he was jesting.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Baptist born, Baptist bred:


so what do you think is the eschatology of Southern Baptist? postmillenial (the consensus of early Baptists); amillenial (present at SWBTS and SBTS); or premillenial.

Most of the professors I had at SWBTS were historical premillemial. Most of them left though. The only dispensationalists I met at SWBTS were in the evangelism department. There were none in the theology school.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Paul33:
gb,

You made an excellent point! If the SBC wants wives to stay home, then they better start paying their male staff, professors, church planters more money!

My original post was getting at the ambiguity that you are talking about. Patterson made it clear that he wasn't just referring to the role of Senior Pastor.

So what is he referring to? He said, "teaching men and 'ruling' over men in the context of the church.

I would say any time a woman is in subjection to the pastor and submits to his authority she is blessed with his blessing to do whatever he endorses her to do. There is a huge difference between a teacher and pastor-teacher. There is a difference in the giftedness and role of those people. A pastor must be able to teach the congregation and pastor them. A teacher may or may not be a very good pastor.

Personally I believe a woman should not pastor. But I also must recognize there are particular cases where women have done evangelism and effectively started churches and trained the men to pastor and lead the church. Some may have never done any of the preaching themselves. Shortly after my wife and I were married we attended a fantastic church. It was exploding with growth at the time. The pastor was great. The people told him they wanted him to primarily teach and they would do the rest. They did too. Those people changed our lives. After being there awhile I met an elderly lady and had gotten to know her. She mentioned to me that she was a charter member. So I asked her to tell me how it got started. She was one of the two single ladies that helped get that church going. The first man that came along they made him their preacher. They taught him the Bible and how to pastor. I think another good example is Lottie Moon.

There is no doubt in my mind that the pastor should be a man. But I am convinced that as men do not do the work God has called them to do God will go to another choice. He will use whoever is available for ministry. God has made the man to be the primary leader. That’s just the way it is.

 

[Todd]

There is no doubt in my mind that the pastor should be a man. But I am convinced that as men do not do the work God has called them to do God will go to another choice. He will use whoever is available for ministry. God has made the man to be the primary leader. That’s just the way it is.

Wow GB, now we see some of your theology coming to the service. You seem to argue that if God is not able to accomplish His will in His way, then He will simply resign Himself to bringing about His will in a way which fallen man agrees with. And to justify that point, you offer this retort: "That's just the way it is." And you accuse me of faulty hermeneutics?

I started this thread by asking someone to point out where Dr. P's view of women is unbiblical/heretical. To this point, no one has been able to make a clear argument from the Scripture as to why they believe Dr. P. is in error with his views. The one issue that has come to the surface is that of women teaching men the Word of God in an environment outside of the local church. There is a good reason that there is no biblical teaching on this issue for us to reference...in the early church, all Christian teaching was done within the local church. Being a seminary graduate myself, I obviously don't think that means that divinity trianing outside the boundaries of the local church is inherently wrong, but I certainly believe it was never intended to be the ideal.

Because the Bible is silent on the issue of women teaching men the Word of God outside the local church, I must admit that the whole issue must be treated as one of Christian liberty. On the other hand, consider this: Women are not allowed to have authority over men in the home (Eph. 5:22ff). Women are not allowed to have authority over men in the local church (1 Tim. 2:11ff). So then, if God would not permit a woman to have said authority within the parameters already mentioned, why would we think that He would somehow bless a woman's authority over a man within the arena of divinity education? This is a question that none of the moderates posting her have attempted to answer.

Regarding the issue of what is/is not acceptable for a woman to do within the parameters of the local church, again I think we must seek the face of God, all the while agreeing that this is also an issue of Christian liberty. I thought Patterson laid the argument out quite nicely. Paul never said a woman couldn't be "Senior Pastor," "Associate Pastor," etc. What he did say was that a woman was not to have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12). Thus, I think that some of you guys are asking the wrong question. Rather than asking what titles or positions can a woman can hold, you really need to be asking "Would a woman's placement in such a position (Associate Pastor, Sunday School teacher, etc.) allow her to have authority over men in the teaching of God's Word?" If the answer is yes, then clearly she should not be placed in that particular position.

And as I previously stated, just because you may not agree with the fact that Patterson didn't want some women in positions where they were going to have biblical authority over men (eg. - Theology classes), you must at least admit that if this is something of an area of Christian liberty then it was his call to make since he is the President at SWBTS.

One more reminder: Can we please move from the issue of dispensationalism and stick with the issue at hand. If someone wants to discuss the merits/evils of dispensationalism, go create another thread somewhere else.

 

[Paul33]

What you accused gb of doing, you just admitted to.

Seminary training is not ideal, yet you went to seminary.

That's just the way it is, apparently, even for you.

No one is disagreeing with Patterson, we just don't know how he is going to apply what he said. He gave a principle without application.

Thank you for giving us your application of Patterson's principle. But Patterson himself has not done this. So we still don't know if Patterson agrees with your application or not.

 

[Paul33]

Actually, you didn't start this thread asking us to point out where Patterson's view is unbiblical. You simply posted a sermon by Patterson so that we could hear what he believes directly from the "horse's mouth."

Is this why you are jumping all over everyone for discussing Patterson's sermon?

You should have said, "This is what Patterson believes, where is he wrong?" You didn't do that, but your underlying motives clearly show that is what you meant.

 

[Todd]

Paul33, your attempt at accusing me of double talk would be grounded were it not for this - women having authority over men is clearly a sin in the Word of God (gb was trying to argue that God could possibly make some exceptions to this within the local church). Yet, no where does God's Word say that divinity training outside the local church is inherently evil. Thus, your charge of double talk against me is not grounded because you are attempting to compare apples and oranges.

I don't know how Patterson can make his point much more clearly - he firmly believes that women should not have authority over men in teaching the Word of God because that's the principle set forth in God's Word. Obviously, he has applied the Scripture's rule for women in the home and the local church and applied it to the arena of the seminary (and though this is an area of Christian liberty, sound theology and clear logic seem to both be on his side of the argument). You may not agree with that, but his actions clearly prove that this is where he stands, and I think he can clearly make a case from the Scriptures regarding his position.

 

[Paul33]

Todd,

It is clear that you believe that women should not be teaching theology at SWBTS.

But Patterson didn't say that. He limited his restriction to the church. Now if he has a broader meaning of church that encompasses theology classes in a seminary, he should say so.

Don't get mad at me/us because Patterson did't apply his principle to remove doubt or misunderstanding.

Don't get mad at me/us because Patterson restricted "teaching" and "ruling" over men to the realm of the church.

I'm not the one who gave the message. Patterson did! And a very ambiguous message at that, if he was trying to clear up his views as to how they pertain to his involvment as President of SWBTS.

 

[Todd]

Paul, here is what I said in my original post at the end of Patterson's "sermon" as you dubbed it. Please pay close attention to the last sentence:

This is one of the best brief explanations of a woman's ontology and her role in the kingdom of God that I have ever seen. Especially insightful were the analogies of a police officer/citizen and a parent/child relationship. Of course, those analogies illustrate the relationship between the Father and the Son, which of course is the relationship that the NT looks to as it explains the value of women and their place within the kingdom of God. I'd be interested to know if there are still any out there who think that Dr. P. is still "too narrow" or "heretical" in his view of women.

As you see, I asked someone to show me where Dr. P. is wrong. Can you or anyone else please show me now?

 

[Paul33]

No, I can't, because I agree with you.

The problem is not that God has a role for women to play in the home and church. The problem is how do you or can you apply this role to areas outside the church.

Define church. (You've included theology classes in a seminary in that definition.)

The problem is that this "brief explanation" doesn't tell us how Patterson is going to apply his understanding of the role of women in the church to his presidency at SWBTS.

Well, that's not quite true. He said women can doing anything that is not forbidden in Scripture. He limited teaching and ruling over men to the arena of the church. An honest understandnig of what he is saying, therefore, must mean that women can teach and exercise authority in the seminary, because it is not forbidden in Scripture, and because a seminary is not a church.

If you disagree with that, take it up with Patterson. It's his sermon.

 

[Todd]

Define church. (You've included theology classes in a seminary in that definition.)

Paul, maybe you didn't read one of my previous points in which I went to great lengths to talk about how Paul's words concerning women and the local church pertain to the arena of the seminary. I never said that "seminary theology classes" were part of the church - please try not to misrepresent what I said.

Also, you have yet to attempt an answer to the questions I recently posed. If God would not allow a woman to have authority over a man in the home or in the local church, what makes you think that He would bless such an arrangement upon a seminary campus? The best answer to this question you have attempted thus far is one from biblical silence. In other words, you reason that because God's Word is silent on this issue, then anything goes. That's not the way to go about interpreting the Bible and apply its truth in a way that is pleasing to God. Your reasoning here sounds much like the rebellious child who wants to do nothing more than the very minimum that has been required of him by his parents. I ask you, just because God's Word is silent on this issue, does that mean that what God has said about the role of women in the home and in the local church should have no bearing at all upon this issue?

For example, let's say you have a child that wants a bedtime snack after he has already brushed his teeth. Because you don't want him to have cavities, you have determined that you will not allow him to have a snack. Determined though, your child comes and asks for "M&M's," to which you reply with a no. He comes back a few minutes later and asks for some cookies, to which you again reply with a prompt no. Yet, as soon as you leave the room, your child decides to go and get a twinkie while you're not looking. My question is this: Would you have a right to punish your child for eating the Twinkie when you had only told him that he could not have a cookie or some M&M's? Obviously, you would punish your child because, even though you didn't explicitly tell him he couldn't have a Twinkie, you made your will known through the prior denials - you didn't want him having a bedtime snack.

While I know analogies are not perfect, I think this one in particular is a very accurate picture of the issue we are discussing. God has said NO to women having authority over men in the home. Further, He has said NO to women having authority over men in the local church. Why then would He say YES to women having authority over men when it comes to the handling of God's Word in a seminary classroom. Clearly, your reasoning defies logic and seems to employ the use of sketchy hermeneutics.

 

[Paul33]

Todd,

It's not my sermon! Get it!

I am analyzing what you asked us to analyze. Patterson said what he said.

Your problem is not with me, it's with Patterson.

You see, I don't know anything else about Patterson and what he believes. Apparently you do.

I can only analyze what he said. And what he said was that WOMEN CAN DO ANYTHING THAT IS NOT FORBIDDEN IN SCRIPTURE! His words, not mine!

You say that women can't teach theology in seminary! Fine. We know your view.

Patterson didn't say that! From what I gather, based on your argument, this is what Patterson believes. But I don't know that from reading his sermon.

You have a unique ability to see disagreement where none exists.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Todd:

Wow GB, now we see some of your theology coming to the service. You seem to argue that if God is not able to accomplish His will in His way, then He will simply resign Himself to bringing about His will in a way which fallen man agrees with. And to justify that point, you offer this retort: "That's just the way it is." And you accuse me of faulty hermeneutics?

Yep, and again I accuse you of lifting things out of context too.

I am not sure what you meant when you wrote, “Wow GB, now we see some of your theology coming to the service.” Could you explain? What service?

Apparently you pick and choose to answer the questions you like. How about answering the following questions I asked earlier?

“Could you quote me where I mentioned Patterson was foolish?”

What an example to use someone whom the liberal media calls “Theologian of the year.” Can’t you find someone better than that?

The first words of my posting were, “Patterson does not know the difference between a teacher and a pastor-teacher.” Do I need to give you a chapter and verse so you know where those words are used. If you don’t know look them up in a Greek NT. Did you not read those words?

Then you did some eisegesis when you lifted what I wrote right out of context. One of the first rules of proper hermeneutics is that you interpret in light of its historical context. FYI, the exact quote is, “Yes historical theology is absolutely accurate. Paul preached it. Peter preached it. Jesus preached it.” Now show me how that is wrong? Are you saying God’s theology since before the beginning is not accurate?

Did you not read my previous posting before reacting?

I really don’t care if you agree with me or not, but to lift quotes out of context to try and win a point is not becoming of anyone who calls himself a believer..

My point was exactly the same as yours when I was younger and knew everything. But now that I am a few years older and have seen those whom God has used I realize that I cannot contain God’s work and but it in my little box of pet theology. God will accomplish His will His way and it may not always be the way I think it should be done. You response kind of reminds me of the question a young man asked of a woman who had been and SBC missionary for about 30 years. He asked her about what gave her the right to be a woman missionary. Her response was classic. “Young man if there weren’t so many lazy men like you we wouldn’t have to go.”

In your efforts as a good Southern Baptist pastor perhaps you need not go any further than Lottie Moon. Yes and compare her to professor Toy. Then it would probably help if you read “And The Word Came With Power” by Joanne Shetler. Miss Shetler was a Wycliffe Missionary.

“So then, if God would not permit a woman to have said authority within the parameters already mentioned, why would we think that He would somehow bless a woman's authority over a man within the arena of divinity education?”

I answered your question earlier. Have you ever studied the difference between the gift of pastor-teacher and teacher. There is a difference. BTW the seminary president and trustees are the men in charge, not the students and not the faculty. So if a woman teaches that does not put her in authority over men, does it? Isn’t she under the authority of the men who are over her namely the president and trustees. I find it interesting the only people I ever saw having a problem in the seminary with a woman teacher were the young kids. I was 39 when I started seminary. When I was told Karen Bullock was great I took her. What I found was a godly woman who conducted herself with dignity and honor, whose dad had been a pastor and a woman who loved her students and loved teaching. My opinion was that she was probably the best teacher SWBTS had. Never once had I heard a student ever say that she was not a godly woman and did not conduct herself in a manner like Christ.

Let’s compare what I wrote compared to your exaggeration of what I actually wrote. You have been reading the SBC publications too long.

What you wrote:

‘Wow GB, now we see some of your theology coming to the service. You seem to argue that if God is not able to accomplish His will in His way, then He will simply resign Himself to bringing about His will in a way which fallen man agrees with. And to justify that point, you offer this retort: "That's just the way it is."’

What I wrote:

“There is no doubt in my mind that the pastor should be a man. But I am convinced that as men do not do the work God has called them to do God will go to another choice. He will use whoever is available for ministry. God has made the man to be the primary leader. That’s just the way it is.”

If you are going to quote me, don’t you think the quote should be in context?

 

[foxrev]

Wow:

Talk about way off the wall! PP Says the Bible doesn't forbid a woman to preach/pastor? What in the world is he thinking! Women are not to have authority over men. Bottom line fellas. Preaching the WORD of GOD is AUTHORITY. No higher authority anywhere. This is lunacy to even think it is ok for them to preach let alone be a "Pastor." Apostacy is here and you say that Woodbridge was wrong in his prediction? He was right and you who argree with PP are the frog in the pot!

 

[Todd]

Fox, I don't know where you heard that Dr. P. is in favor of female pastors in the local church...anyone here can tell you that such is not the case. As you will see at the onset of this thread, he clearly says that women are not to have authority over men, and obviously that would include being a Pastor.

Paul and GB, you are correct...Dr. P. did say that women can do anything that is not prohibited by the Scripture. Where I think the disagreement is coming in at is that (based on his actions at SWBTS) he obviously believes the prohibition against female authority in the home and the local church carries with it an implicit prohibition of said authority on the seminary campus, mission field, etc. If that is his position (which his actions seem to clearly prove that it is), then I am wholeheartedly in agreement. I cited my own analogy in a previous post that at least shows the logic of such a hermeneutic, and neither of you attempted a reply. If you are not convinced that this is Dr. P's position on women having authority over men in the seminary campus, pick up the phone and ask him what his position is. He has always had an open door policy and I can assure you that he won't duck your question. Further, you need to remember that he was attempting to write a brief article for BP when he penned this "sermon." It is impossible to cover all bases when you are attempting to be brief. Thus, if you're not satisfied with his brief explanation, pick up the phone and call him, but don't spin this whole thing off as another example of the "good ol' boy" system at work until you've attempted to ask him for yourself. I think it's quite obvious where he stands on this whole issue based on his actions though.

GB, you do raise an interesting point of whether or not a woman has authority over men by teaching them the Word of God in a seminary classroom, if her school's President and trustees are men. Let's just assume that she doesn't have final authority over the young men entrusted to her care as you seem to indicate. Even if she does have to come under the authority of a President and Trustees, isn't she still exercising authority over the men in her classroom when she teaches them the Word of God? Though she may not have the "final authority" as you say, that doesn't mean that she no longer has any authority. In fact, I would submit that she has a substantial amount of authority over the men in her class because, let's face it, the President and the Trustees very seldom attend classes (you know that yourselves from the time you've spent in seminary).

Again, let me turn to a quick analogy to make my point. I used to work at Winn-Dixie during my seminary days, and I had the good fortune of meeting our store's District manager who was a godly man and a genuinely honest person. Yet, when he wasn't at our store (which was 99% of the time), a Store Manager was left to run the show. While that Store Manager was under the authority of the District Manager, you'd be hard pressed to realize that because it was understood that the Store Manager was left to make decisions apart from the constant oversight of the District Manager.

And so it is with a female faculty member teaching men the Word of God. She may not be the final authority, but she has a substantial amount of authority since the President and Trustees seldom attend classes. And my point is simply this: Paul said that women are to have no authority in teaching men the Word of God in the home or the local church. I know you could attempt to site the example of Priscilla (Acts 18:26) in making a case for a female teacher outside the context of the local church, but remember that Aquilla was with his wife the whole time the instruction was taking place. Thus, to compare the example of what was happening at SWBTS with that of Priscilla and Aquilla would be like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[gb93433]

Todd:

Again I still take the position that there is a huge diference between a pastor-teacher and a teacher. A teacher in a local chruch would have been in submission to a pastor. So is it the same in a seminary.

 

[Paul33]

If Patterson believes as you say he does, Todd, then his sermon was a poor vehicle in expressing his true position regarding the role of women at SWBTS.

BTW,I have not stated whether I agree or disagree with women professors in seminary. So don't make the mistake of implying that I have or haven't. You don't know my position, because I haven't stated it.