The First Woman Mega-Church Pastor of an SBC Church?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, May 31, 2007
- Viewed 107
- (62) comments so far
According to a Decatur church member familiar with the process, the congregation reacted to the announcement with “solid approval.” Pennington-Russell, 46, is scheduled to preach June 17 in anticipation of election the same day.
First Baptist of Decatur—a 141-year-old church in the Atlanta suburb of Decatur—will immediately become a centerpiece in the effort to elevate and celebrate women in pastoral roles. But the congregation is not seeking that notoriety, said one church leader.
“Calling Julie was definitely not about ‘making a statement,’” the longtime member said. “Our committee and the deacon council really felt the leadership of the Holy Spirit as we navigated this decision-making process. And to have our entire congregation—minus five or six folks who are not happy about this—stand at the close of the service yesterday and applaud our committee was overwhelming to us.”
Calvary Baptist in Waco was the first church in the Baptist General Convention of Texas to call a woman as senior pastor. At the time, it also reportedly was the largest congregation of Southern Baptist heritage to be shepherded by a woman.
First Baptist of Decatur is affiliated with the moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship but also maintains ties with the Southern Baptist Convention.
In the past 30 years, the Southern Baptist Convention has taken an increasingly hard line on women in leadership. That move—which happened as part of an overall rightward shift in the denomination—culminated in 2000, when the denomination added a clause to its official confession of faith that said the Bible restricts the office of pastor to males.
However, the confession is not binding on local churches, and many congregations affiliated with the SBC have ordained women as ministers and deacons for years.
Nonetheless, several local associations and a handful of state conventions have dismissed churches that have called a woman as a pastor in recent years.
The Decatur congregation would be the third that Pennington-Russell has led. Prior to her tenure at Calvary, she served for five years as pastor of Nineteenth Avenue Baptist Church in San Francisco. She also served that church previously as an associate pastor.
During her time in San Francisco, fundamentalists in the California Southern Baptist Convention tried three times, unsuccessfully, to get the convention to withdraw fellowship from the Nineteenth Avenue congregation.
Pennington-Russell also faced protesters when she went to Waco. However, Calvary has—according to multiple accounts—experienced a significant renaissance under her leadership. What had been an aging, shrinking congregation in a troubled neighborhood has grown numerically and attracted many young adults, as well as faculty and students from nearby Baylor University and Truett Theological Seminary.
While records on Baptist women in ministry are hard to track, experts in the field said May 29 that the Decatur congregation would likely be by far the largest church of Southern Baptist heritage ever led by a woman.
You can read more here at the Associated Baptist Press website.
Any reactions?
A female pastor who broke the "stained-glass ceiling" in Texas Baptist life is expected to move to a historic church near Atlanta, making it by far the largest Southern Baptist church led by a woman. A search committee of the 2,696-member First Baptist Church of Decatur, Ga., presented Julie Pennington-Russell's name May 27 as its recommendation to fill the open office of pastor. Since 1998 Pennington-Russell has been pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas.
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
layne on Fri, June 01, 2007
Yeah but I read it on Friday. And the obviouse (to me) nature of the pastors heart to reach the lost seemed that the only possible way to say it was jokingly.
Stewart on Fri, June 01, 2007
I disagree with those who say… “as long as the direction of the Holy Spirit was followed.” The argument of the “no women pastor’s” crowd is that it’s against Scripture. Since the Holy Spirit wouldn’t contradict Scripture - then they would assume that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t lead in the direction this congregation believes they’ve been led. Would you apply the same “if the they followed the Holy Spirit” logic if they’d called a transsexual (see post from earlier this week)?
My point is the question on “women in ministry” is first and foremost a question how we understand the Bible. It is for THAT reason that I applaud this congregation in Atlanta. Too many churches have excluded women based on misunderstanding of Biblical texts (I’m not going to make the arguments - we all know the various sides). I think just appealing to the leading of the Holy Spirit sort of degrades the issue. It’s like saying, “I won’t even try to argue from Scripture, so I’ll throw out a subjective standard.
Okay - end of rant here - sorry for the diversion. I, too, find her vision statement to be inspiring. If I know traditional churches - that’s going to get her into a lot of hot water with vested interests within the church. I’ll be praying for her.
The Faceless Saint on Fri, June 01, 2007
The thread is not about your opinions about my blog. I find talking to a blog much easier on some levels than talking to people. I post there when I feel the need to. God does indeed know my heart and is fully able to see why the blog is there. I am talking to Jesus and still am a Christian. Thank you for your concern.
As for the comment regarding the pastor, it was sarcastic. I have heard the very same “vision” from other well-received male pastors but found it interesting that a woman pastor *gasps* would have a similar kingdom-focused agenda. With pastors like Pennington-Russell, people are liable to get saved.
Wendi on Fri, June 01, 2007
Stewart,
You make such a good point. If we allowed ourselves the freedom to claim direction of the HS without submitting to scripture . . . who knows what permissions we’d give ourselves? But how do you respond to the suggestion that honorable and godly men and women on both sides of this argument have submitted fully to scripture and to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and having done so still landed in different places? Can the same Holy Spirit really lead people through the inerrant word of God to completely different places? I think so. Which, IMO . . . frees us to hold our interpretations on disputable issues with our hands open and our arms linked. Neither scripture nor the leading of the Spirit is diminished . . . and perhaps most importantly, neither is the unity of the faith.
Wendi
nora on Sat, June 02, 2007
Stewart,
I hear what you are saying about following the direction of the Holy Spirit, but my point was that the greater issue involved here is did the Search Committee choose the God-selected leader for that congregation, not is that person a man or a woman? Having just finished being on a Search Team for 10 months where we selected the Interim, despite there being a strict injunction against such in the bylaws, obedience always trumps everything else—gender included. So I applaud this particular search committee for being open to the leading of the Holy Spirit, even though it may have led them down a path that they might not have been initially comfortable with. But, Stewart, I think that we essentially agree here.
Nora
Stewart on Sat, June 02, 2007
Hi Wendi,
I have a slightly different take on how to understand genuine Christians coming down on different sides of an issue. Rather than believing that the Holy Spirit leads different people (in the similar contexts) to different conclusions regarding God’s perspective on a divisive issue, i’m inclined to believe that one or the other side has misunderstood. That doesn’t mean that I need to break communion with those I disagree with. I’ve always believed that humility goes a long way in the kingdom of God. I could be the one who is wrong after all! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Obviously there are some things in Scripture which are hard to understand or are not addressed directly to our contemporary issues. And try as we might to listen to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, we get it wrong sometimes…even the best of us.
Of course there are also things that the Scriptures makes very clear. The trick is to figure out which is which. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif But I’ve dealt with too many Christians who excuse some pretty destructive decisions with “the Holy Spirit led me.” I just find it a dangerous way to argue, that’s all.
Wendi on Sun, June 03, 2007
Stewart - interesting discussion.
I’m not sure my take is all that different from yours. I believe in inerrancy. In disputable issues that scripture addresses, one or the other side probably has misunderstood. In this case, what is misunderstood is probably less about what the scripture says and more about whether the author (inspired by the HS of course), intended particular passages to be normative or contextually instructive or descriptive.
My point is that God knew full well, when scripture was inspired, about the vast limitation of human understanding. He gave it to us knowing full well that we would misunderstand and disagree. This sort of makes the different interpretations themselves HS inspired. But the most important act of the HS, when these differences surface, is bringing about unity among people with passionately held but divergent views. This is a leading that is ignored by too many on both sides of this issue (however, in my experience, those AGAINST are much more divisive than those for.)
Melody on Sun, June 03, 2007
I’m reminded of the story of Deborah, who was put in charge by God partly as a judgement against the men of Israel because of their cowardly refusal to trust Him, and in order to mock the Canaanites “Ha! Ha! You got pwnd by a girl!”
There are several examples of God raising women because the men weren’t stepping up, or were acting foolishly. That doesn’t countermand scriptural instruction as to God’s will for our service, but recognizes that God uses everything to get His ultimate will accomplished. Perhaps instead of protesting this women, the men need to do some self examination to determine if, how and why they are failing to lead.
I’m unable to judge the motivations of this woman in seeking the role of head pastor, or the congregations in calling her. In any case, God uses both our obedience AND our sins to work out His plan. I wouldn’t, however, be personally comfortable remaining in a congregation which called a woman as head pastor. How could she teach that the Word of God is inerrent and authoritative, while at the same time disregarding large portions of it?
Wendi on Sun, June 03, 2007
Melody,
There are two problems with your post.
First, you are reading God’s motives into the text about Deborah. It could be that the people (including the men), were behaving badly and He simply choose the most godly person – irrespective of gender. The text never implies that Deborah was chosen to embarrass the wimpy men for not taking leadership, even if that was the result because of the cultural context.
[The text does indicate that the Lord embarrassed Barak by allowing Jael (a woman) to kill his enemy Sisera with a tent peg, but that was not because he was failing as a male leader, it was because he was balking at God’s appointed leader, who happened to be a woman.]
Second, it divisive to imply that Pennington-Russell and those who called her as pastor are in sin. You accuse her of disregarding large portions of scripture (though the number of specific references in scripture to this subject are miniscule). She and others don’t disregard these passages at all, we carefully consider them along with the whole teaching of scripture, and interpret them differently than you.
The way to communicate your position without being divisive would be to say instead: “I wouldn’t, however, be personally comfortable remaining in a congregation which called a woman as head pastor because I interpret scripture to say that a woman is not to fill the role of head pastor.
BTW – I’m guessing that your view of scriptural inerrancy doesn’t require you to wear a hat to church as a “sign of authority.” [An obviously sarcastic comment, just to point that we all make some allowances for scripture to be sometimes instructive and descriptive rather than normative and authoritative.]
Wendi
Melody on Sun, June 03, 2007
I have to disagree, Wendi. In Ch 4, v. 6 Israel is living under oppression because of their disobedience. Deborah calls in Barak and delivers a command from the Lord in her role of prophetess. Barak refuses to go unless Deborah accompanies him. Deborah agrees and says, “ Okay, but, but you won’t be getting the glory for this, because God is going to give this victory into the hands of a woman.” (Not a quote, loosely paraphrased.) She is clearly rebuking him, and in spite of the fact that Barak fought bravely and successfully, the ultimate victory wasn’t due to a warrior/leader but a simple housewife (Jael) who had opportunity in the course of her normal duties as hostess of her husband’s tent. I believe that you are reading Barak’s reluctance as being related to Deborah’s gender into the text. It’s just not there. It is clear that she was accepted as a prophetess, and Barak readily went WITH her in accompaniment. Why did he want her along?
As Deborah sang, there was nobody left and Deborah stepped up to the plate as Israel’s protector, a mother to the nation.. Women have always done this for their families.
I would like to clarify that I did not say that Pennington-Russel or her church were sinning by calling her. I was quite specific that I am unable to judge their motivations which thing, I believe, the Lord looks at. I will say that if the men of that church, and the invisible church, were more faithful leaders that women wouldn’t feel the need to do their appointed jobs for them.
I won’t address the hat issue. It’s off topic and clearly brought into the discussion because you are offended. For that, I apologize.
Wendi on Sun, June 03, 2007
Melody . . .
Hmmm. I still don’t see how you know that God’s purpose in installing Deborah was to shame the men for not “stepping up to the plate.” There are plenty of other biblical examples where one leader stood alone . . . again . . . irrespective of gender. When others stood alone, it was because . . . (we don’t try to guess – unless the text tells us). When Deborah stood alone, it was because the men wouldn’t step up. Personally, I’m going to refrain from second guessing what isn’t there.
Also, Deborah delivered to Barak an assignment straight from the Lord (v. 6). After hearing it, Barak said (my loose paraphrase) “Um, I’m not going to do this by myself. Unless you go with me, I’m not budging.” Because he was insubordinate to Deborah and to the Lord, he did not get the glory for the victory over Sisera. In fact, the NIV indicates that it was his insubordination that kept him from receiving the recognition; “I will go with you. BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY YOU ARE GOING ABOUT THIS, the honor will not be yours,”
I am not reading any motive in Barak’s reluctance, just that his words and actions were insubordinate. Maybe there was a gender issue, he lacked confidence in Deborah as a legitimate prophet; maybe he was just afraid; I don’t know why he balked. Any more than you know, from the text, why God installed Deborah. All we know for sure is that she was appointed by God.
And frankly, I’m surprised that you don’t see any implication in your statement about sin. You did say that you don’t know their motives, but go on to remind us that God uses all things . . . even our sin. Seems logical to link your sin comment to the group of people we’re discussing.
I didn’t bring up the hat issue because I’m offended. Actually, I’m not. I think it is exactly the issue of this post. The folks at Calvary Baptist read Paul’s restrictive statements about women in leadership as cultural, intended to protect a particular church, at a particular time in history from a particular problem that would hinder the gospel. You read those same words as authoritative and normative, intended for all churches and transcending history. However you read Paul’s instructions about women covering their heads as cultural rather than authoritative (from the same passage BTW). However, there are denominations today who even disagree with this (Apostolic churches mostly), and require women to keep their hair long and cover their heads in church.
Is someone right and another wrong? As Stewart points out, probably so. My point? I don’t think we’re going to know who is right and who is wrong this side of heaven. That being the case, I think we’re better served to refrain from telling a brother or sister that they or wrong (or worse, in sin). In the interest of Christian love and unity, we should passionately defend our interpretation on disputable issues, always acknowledging there are brothers and sisters with other legitimate interpretations. Accusing Pennington-Russell of “disregarding large portions of scripture” doesn’t adopt that kind of loving posture.
Wendi
Stewart on Sun, June 03, 2007
Hi Wendi,
I would guess from your discussion with Melody that you (Wendi) and I are actually in full agreement. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
dpastordan on Mon, June 04, 2007
One of the other difficulties in this discussion not mentioned is what the SBC believes about church autonomy. The SBC is not a hierarchal structure. It is a fellowship (convention) of likeminded supporting churches in agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message.
When a church is autonomous, it really has the freedom to choose its pastors - male or female. As a pastor of another SBC church, my opinion does not matter in the call of its pastor (within limits, I would question calling a non-believer to pastor a church). Now if the local Baptist association or State Covention have as a requirement that churches be led by a male, then it is a matter of fellowship differences that need to be resolved.
reGeN on Mon, June 04, 2007
dpastordan makes a very interesting point…the SBC can act by cutting off ties but i wonder if they will…my old baptist church in the washington dc also holds ties with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the SBC, mainly to continue missions funding…FBC-Decatur will be fine whether other pastors who need to tend their own respective flocks like it or not…i like the lady’s vision for ministry and the local church and hope FBC-Decatur is faithful to the mission it’s Savior has called all of us to fulfill…
*walks away humming that gospel classic “Sweep Around Your Own Front Porch”*
Jerry A Maddock on Mon, June 04, 2007
If our church board followed every so called leading of the spirit brought to us over the years, we would be in an awful mess right now. My experience has also shown that the very liberal views in the church today have certainly not improved the body as a whole. If anything it has done the opposite. The measure of truth is the word, not the spirit and the bible is very clear on this subject.
Page 2 of 5 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Post a Comment