I wonder if this point was clear when he spoke publicly for women in ministry?

jle

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.

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.”

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.

I agree that we should expect people to do what they can - but “what they can” has to entail actually doing something….

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.

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.

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

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.