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

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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,

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.

 

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,

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.

 

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?

 

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:

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.

 

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.