This will likely be my last Wade Burleson-related post. This is probably two, too many. But in light of a recent comment exchange on his blog regarding the ousting of First Baptist Decatur from the Georgia Baptist Convention, this post is quite appropriate.
Back in August, Wade Burleson was the keynote speaker at the Midwest Region meeting of the New Baptist Covenant in Norman, Oklahoma. He preached a nice pro-Women-In-Ministry sermon titled A Personal Confession, A Public Challenge. Here is a snippet or two from that sermon:
It has come to my attention these past few years that my sisters in Christ within the Baptist faith are often in need of such defense. The parallels between the modern American Baptist woman and the 19th century American Baptist black are numerous. To defend a gifted Baptist woman today is considered by some Baptist men as an unbiblical act. To call any mistreatment of Baptist women today “un-Christian” is tantamount to treason in the eyes of some Baptist leaders. Many Baptists believe, particularly in the Southern Baptist Convention, that to defend Baptist women and to attempt to set them free to serve to the full extent of God’s call and giftedness in their lives is a denial of the faith. But I propose that any action taken to prevent the mistreatment of Baptist women in ministry is the most loving thing that can be done to both the victim and the one who is oppressing. In my opinion, the protection of a Baptist women who minister is the fulfillment of Christ’s biblical command to love each other as Christ has loved us.
No doubt that Burleson is late on the scene when it comes to Women-In-Ministry. Better late than never of course. Nonetheless, Burleson has been a LOUD champion for Women-In-Ministry from the blogosphere to the New Baptist Covenant to National Public Radio. He even received an award from Christians for Biblical Equality. I applaud him here.
Any person who regularly stops by www.wadeburleson.com knows that Burleson FREQUENTLY blogs about Women-In-Ministry. Most recently, Burleson addressed the subject in a provocative post titled The Dismissal of FBC Decatur: When Does A Convention Become A Cult?
What I found most interesting about this post was not that Burleson championed Women-in-Ministry, specifically women pastors, but an exchange in the comment thread between Burleson and a guy named Jeff.
Jeff simply asked Burleson if he had any women on his pastoral staff. See Burleson’s large pastoral staff here.
Burleson then basically gave Jeff the run-around.
Jeff pointed out that Burleson’s church has a large pastoral staff where all of the men are listed as “pastors” (Senior Pastor, Executive Pastor/Worship Pastor, Senior Adult Pastor, Great Commission Pastor, Next Generation/Students Pastor, Next Generation/Students Assistant Pastor, Singles/Evangelism Refuge Worship Pastor, and College Ministry Pastor).
Meanwhile, the female staff members in ministry positions are listed as Children’s Ministry DIRECTOR and Early Childhood DIRECTOR.
Jeff continued to ask Burleson similar questions. Jeff did come across as a bit annoying. However, Burleson OFTEN puts himself FRONT AND CENTER and champions Women-In-Ministry.
I realize that even most moderate Baptist churches do not employ an ordained female minister and they would not like these questions. That’s fine. But then again the pastors of such churches ARE NOTout-and-about advocating on behalf of Women-In-Ministry on a weekly, if not almost daily basis.
Jeff’s questions which amount to: Do you practice what you preach. And if so, HOW do you practice what you preach - are quite appropriate. If you’re going to put yourself out there as a leader, as a vocal proponent of something, you sure as heck better be able to explain to those interested how you make your words meaningful through concrete action. And there are definitely many different ways to make those words meaningful in regards to Women-In-Ministry.
All agree? Great.
So, how did Burleson respond to Jeff? Well, he said that Jeff’s questions were
IMPERTINENT
I, the big daddy weave, jumped in as I rarely, if ever do at that blog, and put forth a strong yet respectful argument asking Wade to explain what he’s “doing on behalf of women-in-ministry beyond blog posts and comments?”
And Wade’s revealing response
IMPERTINENT
Apparently, he felt my question was IMPERTINENT as well.
In the months leading up to the New Baptist Covenant Celebration in Atlanta, my dad wrote a column noting that Al Mohler was right in asserting that Baptists of the egalitarian variety have not done the best job of practincing what they preach when it comes to Women-in-Ministry particularly in the pastorate. Here’s a snippet from his article titled Breaking the Glass Ceiling:
[Mohler] correctly noted that there is usually a “glass ceiling” when it comes to the calling of women to pastorates. Moderate and liberal (he cited Baptists and Presbyterians) Christians who often affirm the calling of women to pastoral ministry are very hesitant to actually call women to their churches as pastors.
Whether you’re a Baptist egalitarian who quietly and privately affirms women-in-ministry or whether you’re a Baptist egalitarian who loudly and publicly affirms women-in-ministry, there is still a tremendous need to make words mean something real. Words must be more than mere words.
Words must be made meaningful through concrete action.
It is not the time to conveniently dismiss relevant questions as impertinent. Nor is it time to retreat and deemphasize the women in our Baptist midst whom have been called to serve in pastoral ministry. Greater emphasis is desperately needed right now. (Emphasized particularly for my BGCT readers).
Related posts:
- Baptist Historian On The Unfinished Journey of Baptist Women In Ministry Dr. Bruce Gourley - Baptist historian, blogger, owner of BaptistLife.com...
- The Logical Extension of Christian Commitment Wade Burleson has blogged extensively about the unjust firing of...
- [Southern] Baptist Women For Equality Introducing [Southern] Baptist Women For Equality: Shirley Taylor, former employee...
- Wade Burleson Takes On Russell Moore In his latest post, Can We All Agree to Disagree...
- A Fundamentalist Attack on Wade Burleson Wade Burleson - A Flaming Liberal? No, not quite. But...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Big Daddy Weave,
You have made it known that you believe me to be a hypocrite. That’s clear to your readers. You seem to think that I should try to convince you and others that I practice what I preach and am NOT a hypocrite.
I must not be getting through to you as clearly as you are to others. I have no interest in proving to you, or anyone else, that my actions are backed up by my words. Trying to convince you I am not a hypocrite is not even on my radar.
The only people who would concern me with a charge of hypocrisy are the women who know me and serve with me, not a male whom I’ve never even met and seemingly has an agenda against me in the first place.
I am thrilled to dialogue with you about issues, but when I become the issue, the dialogue ends because it necessitates me to form a personal defense.
That is of no interest to me.
I hope that’s clearer.:)
Wade
Wade, I really do not care what is on your radar.
Jeff asked you a simple question and you refused repeatedly to provide a simple answer.
You can try to make his simple question about you. You’re quite good at that. However, the question was indeed simple and concerned your efforts or lack thereof.
I do think your refusal to answer the simple question - by taking attention away from the actual question and towards some supposed charge of hypocrisy - has made things quite clear.
I’m sure that many of my readers and your readers - conservative, moderate and liberal alike - have learned much from your ducking and dodging a simple inquiry from a guy named Jeff.
Big Daddy Weave,
Smile. For some reason I still feel that you don’t get it. You write:
I’m sure that many of my readers and your readers - conservative, moderate and liberal alike - have learned much from your ducking and dodging a simple inquiry from a guy named Jeff.
So? What have they learned? Articulate it - be specific. Don’t hold back. Wink.
(1).
(2).
(3).
(4).
(5).
(6).
(7).
(8).
Now, after you fill in the blanks, no matter what you say people have learned about me, I will respond this way:
Shrug.
So? Your point is?
You seem to wish for others to know of my hypocrisy in that my actions don’t back up my words in terms of women and religious intolerance. So be it.
I’m a hypocrite.
I have no interest in defending myself.
Wade
Now see, that’s the kind of “introspection” that your pals Marty Duren and Ben Cole wish you had included in your book in order to “undermine popular mischaracterizations.”
Well doggone, I must be consistent, eh?
Smiling.
I am uncomfortable making judgments about a church’s commitment to egalitarianism on the basis of the gender and titles of its staff members. A church can consider only those applications that are received. Even for a church that affirms women in ministry, an incredibly small percentage of applications will be from women. Likewise, past attitudes toward women in ministry have created a psychological climate in which many women may not feel comfortable being called “pastor.” Should we, in the name of egalitarianism, now impose such a title upon them against their will?
I am not saying that these explanations are true of any particular church, only that they are plausible and could be true of any particular church. Breaking the glass ceiling will be a long and arduous process, a process that begins with churches and pastors that are as willing to support and affirm young women as they experience God’s call to ministry as we are to support young men who perceive the same call. From what I heard at the New Baptist Covenant meeting, I have no doubt that Wade Burleson is one of those pastors. It was an honor to be in the audience.
Randy,
I do not understand this statement:
“Likewise, past attitudes toward women in ministry have created a psychological climate in which many women may not feel comfortable being called “pastor.” Should we, in the name of egalitarianism, now impose such a title upon them against their will? ”
I know more than a few women who because of their call to the ministry, particularly pastoral ministry, have been ordained and have sought a pastorate. Pretty sure that they are more than willing to be called “pastor.”
I am not going to make a judgment on a pastor or church’s commitment to egalitarianism based SOLELY on the the basis of the gender and titles of its staff members, etc.
However, “affirming women-in-ministry” has to mean something more than words. I would expect that a WIM-affirming church would invite a female minister to preach on occasion in the pastor’s absence and/or perhaps participate in Martha Stearns Marshall Day of Preaching and support egalitarian organizations like BWIM that help encourage and support Baptist women called to ministry, etc.
The idea that a church can consider only applications that are received is true. But churches also regularly recruit certain types of applicants. Churches that have chosen to add a female to their pastoral staff have often intentionally sought out a qualified female to apply. The church is obviously an active player in that process. Not sure what you’re trying to get at honestly.
Again, Words Must Be Made Meaningful Through Concrete Action
If a church would like women’s resumes for any ministry position, Baptist Women in Ministy would love to be of help. There are hundreds of gifted, called, experienced Baptist women.
Big Daddy Weave,
By the way, I just read your post a little closer and wanted to correct an error, I’m sure unintentional, in what you have written. The impertinent question asked by “Jeff” (twice) was this:
“Why not invite this poor lady pastor to speak at your church?”
My response to Jeff is below:
“It is my desire to treat you with the respect due a fellow brother in Christ. I pray that over the past few months I have done so.
You have now asked twice:
“Why not invite this poor lady pastor to speak at your church?”
Your questions to me about inviting Julie Pennington to preach at Emmanuel sound to me, and I could be wrong, impertinent. I.
Just wanted to ensure the accuracy of what was actually written as to the impertinent question.
Blessings,
Wade
Jeff asked a few additional and related questions. If your response was in regards to that particular question, fine.
You did, however, refer to my questions (which were merely Jeff’s restated in a more respectful manner) as “impertinent” as well.
Aaron,
Man, I agree with you 100%. This is a great post.
No, not about the ordination of women. Not about the BGCT. Well, shucks, not about much on this topic.
But your first paragraph? Pure, undiluted wisdom. Perhaps you and I ought to form a 12-step group. Sometimes I am weak and need a sponsor.
Changing an existing system is nigh impossible. I believe that may be part of the problem with getting “egalitarian” churches to actually call a female pastor.
Bob Robers, Jr., has mentioned that part of the spiritual awakening happening in other countries is because of women taking the lead in church planting. I wonder why more women aren’t planting churches in America? Do the so called “egalitarian” churches/conventions not offer it as a viable ministry? Do we not offer enough support in $$$?
One thing is for sure: any church started by a lady should have egalitarianism in their DNA.
Tim
Bro. Wade, you have an uncanny knack for frustrating the fire out of most anyone of any stripe who tries to engage you in healthy debate.
As left vs. right, liberal vs. fundamental, progressive vs. conservative goes, you’re definitely no one’s comrade, but the pest of all.
From crooning over the NBC because President Jimmy made nice to you and your blogger pals, to this women-in-ministry stuff, to the IMB, you can make those from both sides go spiritually postal.
You’re a work–and, perhaps, impertinent.
I agree that words should be accompanied by action, although I also believe that speaking out in public should count as “concrete action.” Speaking is a distinctively human action, one that often results in serious consequences. From the post, it appears, to me at least, that accusations have been made of disingenuousness about commitment to women in ministry. This charge seems to be based on two pieces of evidence: first, few churches who say that they are committed to egalitarianism have women as pastors, and second, a church that claims such commitments has male staff members with one title and female staff members with another.
My point is essentially that an inductive argument from these two pieces of evidence to the claim that someone is not serious about affirming women in ministry is fairly weak. Hypothesis confirmation is a function of conditional probabilities. The probability that a church is egalitarian given that it has a woman as senior pastor is obviously extremely high, but the probability that a church is not egalitarian given that it does not have a woman as senior pastor is roughly the same as the probability that a church is egalitarian on the same evidence. That is simply because the base-rate of female applicants is much lower than the base-rate of male applicants. Pam’s comment makes this clear, “There are hundreds of gifted, called, experienced Baptist women.” Hundreds of gifted, called, experienced Baptist women competing for positions with thousands of gifted, called, experienced Baptist men.
I think that the different titles that men and women on staff have is a better indicator of attitudes toward women in ministry, but it’s still far from conclusive. So, when I said that past attitudes toward women in ministry have resulted in a culture that may make many women uncomfortable being called “pastor”, I simply mean that years of being told that it is wrong for one to hold a particular title can make it very difficult to accept the title even when offered. I remember two women in particular at the church I attended while in high school (more than several years ago). One could not bring herself to go to the movies and the other would always wear dresses (she was the pitcher for the Ladies’ softball team, but still played in a dress). When asked, both said that there was nothing wrong with wearing pants or going to the movie theater, but they just couldn’t bring themselves to do either. The psychological and emotional baggage was too great. I think in many cases, something like this is going on with ministry titles. Of course, women who are actively seeking a pastorate are likely to welcome the title of “pastor”, but I don’t have any reason to believe that the women serving as Children’s Ministry and Early Childhood Directors are actively seeking a pastorate.
There are other problems that we haven’t addressed. There are places in the country where it’s relatively easy to invite a female minister to speak, but there are parts of the country where that is extremely difficult. A church that is near a seminary like Truett will have a much easier time than a church in rural Arizona, for instance. None of this is intended to be evidence against the claim that “Words must be made meaningful through concrete action.” That, I think is absolutely true. We should expect people to act on their beliefs, if those beliefs are to count as being sincerely held. What we shouldn’t do is to necessarily expect people to act on their beliefs the same way we think we would, especially if our situations are not identical. We should expect people to do what they can; and sometimes, speaking out publicly and courageously is all that one can do.
This has still been an interesting and important discussion. It has prompted me to give some serious thought to the practical steps one could take for the egalitarian cause. Pam’s work at Baptist Women in Ministry is an excellent start.
By the way, thanks for the blog, it’s always thought-provoking and stimulating.
While there may be thousands of qualified Baptist men compared to hundreds of qualified Baptist women, are these “thousands” actually egalitarians? I don’t think so. Baptist women are not competing for positions with Baptist complimentarians. Can you imagine a church interviewing both a female candidate and a confessed complimentarian? I can not.
I agree that we should expect people to do what they can - but “what they can” has to entail actually doing something….
That’s an interesting point. One thing to note that in order to get the hundreds vs. thousands statistical effect, all that is needed is to have at least ten male applicants for every female applicant. I was on a search committee for a professed egalitarian church that actively sought applications from women, but we still had a greater than 10 to 1 ratio.
It could very well be the case that a search committee interview both complementarians and egalitarians. Some churches are firmly egalitarian, many are strictly complementarian, but many, especially older, dually aligned churches, are complex and have members on both sides. Search committees reflect the diversity in their churches.
BDW - Who knows… if Wade changed the titles of all the staff women directors to pastor it may mean that the very conservative state convention on OK, might be voting Emmanuel out of their convention.
I do think WB wants to get along with almost all people and to do so he may need to compromise certain things, like not living up to the words he has spoken about women in ministry.
Sorta like… “Listen to me for what I have to say in important, just don’t follow my actions.”
I think it’s interesting that Pam’s brief comment is the only comment from a women in this entire conversation.
Perhaps this is what happens when your affirmation of women (or any other oppressed group for that matter) is merely the object of your discussion rather than the subject.
I don’t think Wade is a hypocrite for not having any women on pastoral staff, but he must also acknowledge that the fact that all the pastoral staff in his church being men teaches something theological to all the little girls in his congregation. The theological message that is communicated is, indeed, inconsistent with his views and rhetoric.
Angela,
We have women teach little girls, women teach older girls, women teaching women and,
women teaching men at Emmanuel.
We also have no problem calling women on our staff “pastors” because we believe the word as used in the orignial (just once in the NT) is a verb not a noun.
BDW - Wade has left himself an out by stating that pastor, as he is using it, is a verb not a noun.
I wonder if this point was clear when he spoke publicly for women in ministry?
jle