Monday Morning Insights

Photo of Todd
    .

    Southern Baptists May Remove Church for Woman Co-Pastor

    Southern Baptists May Remove Church for Woman Co-Pastor

    Rev. Mimi Walker was ordained in 2003 and serves as co-pastor with her husband of Druid Hills Baptist Church.  That's the sole reason that the Georgia Baptist Convention wants to remove the church from its role.

    The 52 year old former missionary wonders why.

    “It seems sad that they decided to go backwards in time...I’m not sure what the value is of trying to go back in time when women were held in subservience.”

    More from an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

    The GBC’s executive committee made the recommendation to sever ties with the church at a March 16 meeting. If its recommendation is approved at the annual convention in November, the GBC would no longer accept money from Druid Hills for missions and programs, nor would the church be able to send delegates — called messengers — to future annual meetings.

    “...Druid Hills Baptist Church of Atlanta is not a cooperating church as defined in Article II, Section 1 of the constitution because a woman is serving as co-pastor of the church,” the GBC said in a statement.

    “We are keeping faith with the Baptist Faith and Message with regard to women serving as pastor,” GBC executive director J. Robert White said in a statement. “The GBC has never been opposed to women serving in ministry positions other than pastor.”

    The Georgia Baptist Convention, an affiliate of the Nashville-based Southern Baptist Convention, has roughly 3,600 churches. There are 41 state conventions throughout the country. The Georgia convention is one of the 41 affiliates, but it has its own constitution and bylaws.

    The church will prepare a response if the GBC should “dis-fellowship” it, the Rev. Graham Walker said.

    ---

    You can read the whole article here...

    What do you think?  Regardless of your view of women in ministry, is this something that is worth dis-fellowshipping over?

    Todd

    Comments

    if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, your picture will displayed on any website that supports gravitars.

    1. Pastor Matt on Fri, April 09, 2010

      KA, Which is how we started this discussion - we’re back at the beginning.  Thanks for the discussion.

    2. CS on Fri, April 09, 2010

      Pastor Matt:

      “I’m not dodging a debate of scripture but I was trying to keep the discussion on topic.”

      You laid the course of the tangent with your initial statement about their decision of forbidding women to be pastors being unbiblical and Pharasiacal.  But, okay, let’s get back on topic.

      “Our discussion was instead focussed on the fallout from adopting unmovable positions or whether an institution should find a way to continue relationship with churches that do not share all of its values.”

      If I joined a secular organization, such as a Harley Davidson club, but then decided down the road that I wanted to ride Gold Wings instead, especially at their public events, should I be surprised when they ask me not to do that?  And that if I would continue, I wouldn’t be allowed to be a part of their group?  No, that would come as no shock because I decided to break their rules that I agreed to abide by.  (But, keep in mind, I would still be fine riding on my own anywhere else, and might even find a Gold Wing club along the way.) 

      When a church agrees to follow a denomination, conference, or organization, and then decides that they don’t want to play by the same rules, it should be no surprise that they are asked to change or be disqualified from being a part of their group. 

      Now, as you allege, what if those rules are wrong?  Then they shouldn’t have signed up with people in the first place.  Don’t fight to change their system.  Instead, if those rules are truly bad and wrong, people will begin leaving of their own accord and abandon ship.  Then it will go away on its own.

      Should a church/fellowship/etc. have unmovable positions?  Absolutely, namely on those primary-level doctrines.  But what about adopting unmovable positions on secondary-level topics, like tongues, women in leadership, prophecy, etc.?  I would say that’s fine, too, because the body of Christ can handle those sorts of things, and people can go to other places.  For example, I wouldn’t go to a Pentecostal church because of their charisma, but I wouldn’t force them to change their position.  Instead, I’d go find another church that works for me.


      CS

    3. K. A. Christian on Fri, April 09, 2010

      well said CS… but of course your illustration like mine is irrelevant… lol… and our beliefs are archaic… lol… i guess rules aren’t relevant today…

      I’m still waiting on the Biblical reference to the Baptist Church being unscriptural in our stance about women pastors…

    4. K. A. Christian on Fri, April 09, 2010

      When listening to the interview.. Mimi stated she’s surprised to see the change come about… even though the policy has been in force for 10 years and she was been ordained for only 7 years…

      woman-pastor-causes-stir-with-convention-032910

      the church is differnt from the world… just because it’s going on in the world doesn’t mean it’s to be allowed in the church…

      It’s good to see some conventions are keeping strong to their standards…

    5. Pastor Matt on Fri, April 09, 2010

      (Well pointed out KA, it was an irrelevant illustration - you’re catching on to this!  Anyway, KA, if you’re not familiar with the arguments for women in ministry I suggest you do some background reading on the weight of contemporary theological thought before entering into a discussion such as this.  You’ll find it most illuminating and, should you still disagree, you will be in a position to describe both sides adequately.  But as we’ve said before:  off topic.).

      CS, We disagree on whether women in leadership is a core fundamental - one that is serious enough to be thrown out over.  You say yes, I say no.  Why are you still yakking on?

    6. K. A. Christian on Fri, April 09, 2010

      Matt I’m fully aware of the contemporary theological thougts on the Pauline Epistles… My Graduate level focus was in the Pauline Epistles… having studied them in Greek I’m fully aware (M.Div with minor in Greek Studies… Currently working on my D.D in Greek Studies)... I’m also aware of the contemporary bias that’s brought into many of today’s contemporary theologians… for you to suggest I’m uninformed is folly… you suggest based upon me being Baptist that i said women doesn’t have apart in ministry… which is not what i said nor hinted to… I said God has ordained different functions for the male and female genders…


      Once again… Matt you haven’t proved where I’m unbiblical in my understanding as a Baptist… still waiting on at least one scripture…

    7. CS on Fri, April 09, 2010

      Pastor Matt:

      “Well pointed out KA, it was an irrelevant illustration - you’re catching on to this!”

      How is it irrelevant?  It’s a metaphor, sure, but deals with politics, rules, and similar things to the topic we’re discussing.

      “Why are you still yakking on?”

      There’s a masochistic side of me that likes trying to argue with brick walls, what can I say?


      CS

    8. Pastor Matt on Fri, April 09, 2010

      AK, if you’re informed of the latest thought both ways I am intrigued as to why you think the discussion on women in leadership can be settled here when greater minds than ours have not done so? 

      As I’ve said, many times in this thread, that is not the discussion I am having, despite your attempt to railroad it.

      CS, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

    9. K. A. Christian on Fri, April 09, 2010

      Matt,
      out of all due respect… you’re the one that railroaded it to women in leadership… I responed to thread about following rules and regulations… you’re the one that brought out the Pauline Epistles…then I just commented on good and bad hermeneutics… so don’t try and put this off on others… your card was called and now you’re getting offensive…

      it’s not a matter of settling… it’s a matter of believing what the Bible says… IMO…

      should churches follow rules under organization/associational fellowhsip? yes, If a church breaks those rules should they be kicked out? yes….

    10. K. A. Christian on Fri, April 09, 2010

      Matt,
      this is what I orginally posted…

      Does anybody today follow rules or guidelines? Being a Christian doesn�t exempt one from following rules� In fact, being a Christian makes one more inclined to follow rules� Everything in life has rules� 

      If I want to play football and score a touchdown, the rules states, I have to cross the goal line in order for my points to count. I can�t stop at the 3 yard line and say I scored. Rules are set in place for a purpose. If you don�t want to follow the rules then don�t sign up�

      and:

      @Matt,
      I know we�re not playing football that was just an illustration� I know we�re talking about the kingdom� When this church signed up to be apart of the Baptist Association they knew fair well there were rules in place� Nobody twisted their arm or forced them to be apart of the association� It has nothing to do with institutional politics� But it has to do with Organizational government.
      Why don�t we just follow rules or find another which fits our taste?

      and:
      Matt,
      the new leadership also have the opportunity to stay in or pull out of the association� how does politics come into play when the rules and guidlines of being apart of that organization/association is in black and white?

      Let me ask you this question, you�re a pastor right (of a local congregation)?

      and:

      Matt the issue is in regards to rules that�s set up� if one wishes to be apart of an organization then one has to abide by the rules that�s in place� if the church/congregation was apart of the association before the new pastor was called� that pastor before accepting the call should have sought out the bylaws� by accepting the pastoralship, one agrees to follow the bylaws that�s pre-established� (The organization from reading the article is considering withdrawing fellowship with the congregation because the congregation according to the bylaws installed a woman co-pastor� This doesn�t mean the congregation is no longer apart of the Church universal� it just means that congregation is no longer apart of the association�)

      I�m speaking out of experience� I was offered pastoralship of a particular congregation and I sought out thier bylaws and associational affliations� after examination, i declined the offer because their bylaws didn�t line up to my Biblical conviction�

      Not everything is a fight against the system� some things just take wisdom and change of organization/association� there are plenty of associations that the church could be apart of that falls in line with their belief�

    11. K. A. Christian on Fri, April 09, 2010

      please tell me where I railroaded the thread?

    12. Pastor Matt on Fri, April 09, 2010

      KA, please re-read the thread.  You’ll find that it the women in leadership issue is a side issue that I clarified at the time was not important whether we solved in this thread.  Since then you’ve just continually brought it back up as if it is your one point you’re going to win on.  As I said before, many many many times now, greater minds can’t settle that debate.

      We both agree that it is about believing what the bible says, we just disagree on what the bible says.  Surely that is obvious and something we’re not going to get around.

      I’m getting offensive because I can’t understand why you’re still talking about the same stuff when I’ve made my position clear and have asked to end the discussion on several occasions.  I’m sorry you see our discussion as offensive.

      Can’t we just be like the baptist association and ex-communicate each other ?

    13. K. A. Christian on Fri, April 09, 2010

      once again Matt… you’ve read my discussions… they were strictly about should the church be kicked out of the fellowship…  I’ve even reposted my comments… and they all were about following rules and regulations of organizations one is apart of…

      you went into the other direction and started talking about women in leadership and how the baptist church should be changed…

      the same stuff I’m talking about is pertaining to this thread… as a pastor you have a lot of growing up to do… to get mad because you’re at fault of something is childish…
      I thought we were discussing the issue at hand the breaking of rules and it’s effect…

    14. Pastor Matt on Fri, April 09, 2010

      KA, the suggestion that I’m mad is laughable, I’m just amused that you can’t let go of a discussion.  It is interesting.  But you’re right - compared to God we all have a lot of growing up to do.

    15. K. A. Christian on Fri, April 09, 2010

      letting go of a discussion… I’m posting not to your site but to MondayMorningInsight… correct? and the discussion is about following rules… correct?

      next time stick to the topic and don’t thread upon waters you’re not ready to handle with Scripture…

      all would agree my comments were related to the topic at hand… that’s following rules and regulations and if broken should the church be kicked out… if I’m wrong could anybody but Matt tell me I was off topic?

    16. Page 3 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

      Post a Comment

    17. (will not be published)

      Remember my personal information

      Notify me of follow-up comments?

    Sponsors