After all, she not only taught men but she also kept her last name after remarrying.

If there is one thing I have seen it is the hypocrisy. As if Mrs. Patterson has not taught men with her many writings and speaking engagements.

Consider this.

When we pass on from this world into heaven all of these gender curses shall be lifted off men and women … this enmity will be gone at last … for in heaven there is no marriage relationship - no gender, nor is there work by the sweat of the brow. We shall all stand before Christ on equal footing in heaven.

Equality…you could say is heavenly.

Lord, as it is in heaven, so let it be on earth.

Read Gene Edward’s great book - The Christian Woman Set Free, or Frank Viola’s - Who is Your Covering.

Google it.

First, let me say that if it is true that she was fired only because of her gender, then I think Patterson was wrong and should be called to account in some way (though I think it is too extreme to call for his firing, as according to Burleson’s account, he did give her ample time to find another position and did pay her until that point - thus I don’t think it was malicious, but rather an interpretation of a text that is too narrow and not in line with the convention).

Second, I think it is important not to confuse this issue with other issues that Southern Baptists are clear on. I believe it is clear from Scripture that the ultimate human authority in a CHURCH rests in the hands of elders, which are by Scriptural description men who qualify according to Biblical standards. The “senior pastor” should be one of those male elders.

What Baptists have said historically, including the position of Albert Mohler and Southern Seminary, is that outside of the CHURCH, it is perfectly permissible for women to teach men in Seminary, in business, and generally in life. Most Complimentarians see no extention of the text used by Patterson applying to women teaching men outside of the CHURCH. I would fall into that category.

Third, thus I think that bringing into the mix the issue of women pastors and the example of Molly Marshall (neither of which represents a one-to-one correlation with this unfortunate situation at Southwestern) actually misses the point of what should be discussed in the SBC, which is “where does one draw the line in Scriptural interpretation whereby the most people can cooperate within the SBC, but without violating the individual convictions of its members?”

It is clear that Southern Baptists have drawn the line at women serving as senior pastors. That will not change, nor should it based on the historical record of Baptists. However, this issue at Southwestern is one that should be taken up so that minority interpretations should not dominate the SBC (and I say that because while many have made much of the problems of the conservative resurgence, those involved DID represent the theological positions of the majority of the SBC at that time - and history proves that in how the convention has maintained a majority of its membership, as opposed to other denominations which have moved left and lost over half of their members).

So, while I can appreciate you bringing this up on your blog, I do want to point out that bringing in issues that are settled in SBC life actually misses the real problem with this situation. That might not be true in your opinion, but certainly it is how Burleson has dealt with the issue and how Southern Baptists must deal with it as well.