As the Georgia Baptist Convention prepares to disfellowship yet another church with a female pastor, the pastor of a Florida Baptist church with a female pastor on staff is set to be nominated as President of the Southern Baptist Pastors’ Conference.
James A. Smith of the Florida Baptist Witness has reported that Troy Gramling (aka the “Naked Pastor”), “lead team pastor” of Flamingo Road Church in Cooper City, Florida will be nominated for president of the Southern Baptist Pastors’ Conference in June prior to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Though not reported by the Florida Baptist Witness, the blog SBC Tomorrow recently noted that Flamingo Road has a female pastor on staff. Her name is Heather Palacios. Here is a sermon from Pastor Palacios who is introduced by Troy Gramling. Pastor Heather Palacios is married to Flamingo Road’s Executive-Pastor, Raul Palacios. Pretty cool worship service, I might add.
It’s also worth noting that “pastor” is not a title given out to most staff members at Flamingo Road Church. There appear to be quite a few “directors” of various different ministries who are both male and female.
Follow Pastor Palacios on Twitter or on her blog, LeadHership.
I’ll close with the words of SBC blogger Peter Lumpkins:
Southern Baptists generally and Georgia Baptists particularly owe Dr. Julie Pennington-Russell, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Decatur Georgia a big round of apologies if we elect Troy Gramling as president of the SBC Pastor’s Conference
Actually, SBCers and particularly Georgia Baptists already owe Julie and a host of others a “big round of apologies” but that’s a discussion for another post.
BDW,
I’m glad I could give you some tobacco to chew ;^)
You write at the end, “SBCers and particularly Georgia Baptists already owe Julie and a host of others a “big round of apologies..” I’m tempted to meet you half way: SBCers and particularly Georgia Baptists could owe Julie…a big round of apologies for even thinking of nominating an egalitarian, given our Y2K course we took.
Added to that, and not to sound snotty, one could actually learn something under Dr. Pennington-Russel. But the creamy, feel-good stuff “Pastor” Heather whipped up gags serious disciples, offering but a sugary overload.
Finally, that the president of one of our strongest–if not *the* strongest–state conventions would nominate a man with 0.18% CP who is also an egal is shocking and may tip the hand when our next generation is headed. Of course, Cross already showed his free church corruption as “Board” member for Ed Young’s church in Grapevine.
Thanks, BDW. Hope your weekend a good one.
With that, I am…
Peter
In the nearly 50 years that O have been involved in SBC churches, I have seen the tide swing both ways. What started as a cooperative funding of mission efforts and educational institutions by individual local churches has morphed into a narrower and narrower view of what it means to be a cooperative Baptist church until we are now to a point of being a true denomination with all the hierarchy that entails. It reminds me of herding cats. I see the future of the SBC and it looks increasingly narrower in scope and lessening in impact. God knows the future He has planned for all of us and I pray it will be one that has great plans for the SBC. But from what I read and hear, civil discourse and theological differences have turned into name calling, sarcastic slamming, and behavior that resembles very little of Jesus’ or Paul’s description of how Christians relate to each other.
The BFM(2000) says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Many conservatives in the SBC interpret “pastor” to mean “senior pastor,” not “assistant pastor,” “associate pastor,” “youth pastor,” etc. The church where I am a member has an ordained woman with the unwieldy title “Minister to Children and our Pastor Liaison for Women’s Ministries.” The church is not in any trouble with the SBC . . . yet.
I’m as far removed from conservative Baptist as one can get, but Peter’s correct. If I had to listen to sermons like that every Sunday, I would hang myself in the basement.
Travis,
I agree with you. The problem for Gramling is, he’s on record in disagreement with the “Senior” Pastor paradigm. He makes a big issue of “team” pastors all on a flatline. He simply leads the process as “Lead” Pastor. Those distinctions are his, not mine, btw.
I have a link for that but I’m lazy. If you want it I can get it.
Peace all
With that, I am…
Peter
Happy Birthday, Aaron.
I’d rather owe an apology to Julie Pennington-Russell than to Christ. And yes, some will disagree that Christ wants us to be obedient to the words of Paul, or even what Paul’s words mean.
But my point is simply that I hold the position that I hold neither out of malevolence toward Pennington-Russell nor out of any general misogyny. Rather, than seeking to dominate anyone, I hold the position that I hold on the question of female pastors as a consequence of my sincere attempt to be submissive—submissive to the written instructions of the Master who owns me.
Bart,
I’m wondering . . . Are you also against male pastors who are bachelors, widowers, or were married more than once? They’re not literally “husband[s] of one wife” either (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6). Do you approve of slavery (Philemon)? Do you drink wine for stomach ailments (1 Tim. 5:23)? Do you ask your wife and ladies in your congregation to wear head coverings (1 Cor. 11:5, 10) or grow their hair long (1 Cor. 11:15) or keep quiet in church (2 Tim. 2:11-12)? Do you forbid them to braid their hair or wear jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9)? For that matter, have you plucked out your eye, when it caused you to sin (Matt. 5:29)? You said your position on female pastors is “a consequence of [your] sincere attempt to be submissive . . . to the written instructions of the Master who owns [you],” right? If so, then I’m sure you want to be submissive in everything, not just one thing.
Travis,
It so delights me to learn of your detailed interest in my personal religious practice. Nevertheless, as you are not my Master, I choose to answer simply by saying that yes, I do wish to be submissive in everything, that I find it distasteful for a pastor to mock the idea of attempting to be submissive to Christ, and that I (unlike you) in my comment explicitly left plenty of room for people to disagree graciously both with the status of Pauline statements about the role of women and with the meaning of those statements.
My questions for you were intended to be thought provoking, not mocking. I apologize if my words came across ungracious. You can believe whatever you want on the issue of women in ministry. I just wanted to challenge the rather simplistic equation of support for an all-male pastorate with submissiveness to Christ and fidelity to Scripture. And just for the record, I’m not a pastor.
Travis,
Thanks for clearing that up.
To state that my support for an all-male pastorate is drawn from my desire to be submissive to Christ rather than from misogyny is not the same thing as to assert that being submissive to Christ is a simplistic thing. It is also not the same thing as asserting that all of those who hold to the other position are people who are not trying to be submissive to Christ. I have left room for there to be people earnestly desiring to be submissive to Christ and yet arriving at misunderstanding on this issue.
The point of my comment, rather, was to point out that I have stumbled into folly if my primary concern is whether I owe or do not owe an apology to Julie Pennington-Russell. To come to that conclusion is eventually to choose a practice in this matter that is based upon the pleasing of (wo)men, a sentiment roundly criticized in the New Testament as a motiviation for making doctrinal decisions. The doctrine that is the fruit of the tree of sappy sentimentality is no sweeter than that which is the fruit oft he tree of arid heartlessness.
Unless I owe an apology to Christ, I owe no apology to Julie Pennington-Russell. And if I owe them both an apology, then the greater concern is the fact that I owe an apology to Christ.
Sooner or later the SBC is going to have face the issue of being to rigid. Even the son of the late Adrian Rogers differs from the BFM2000 on some points and they allow that. On the issue of women in ministry, the SBC has gone to far; they have adopted a position that is by implication partonizing of women and disrespectful of the Sovereignty of God. Following the strict views would exclude Lottie Moon, Shubal Stearns, Daniel Marshall, Martha Stearns Marshall and all of the churches that sprang from the Separate Baptists which made the South a Baptist Kingdom. I am not talking about justifying women in ministry from the perspctive of the skeptical camp but from that which holds to full confidence in Holy Scripture. If Stearns and the Marshalls could so influence Morgan Edwards as to change his mind on the issue of women in ministry, then it follows that the ones making such rules had better pull in their horns a little, lest they get hoisted on their own Poniards – a very uncomfortable position. Besides, John Robinson said, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’ word.” Then the light of missions and religious liberty broke forth, to bless much of mankind. And who can say new light on the issue of women and leadership has not broken forth, when our ancestors and predecessors of the 1700s seemed to have thought so?