It's true that there are a lot of faithful people in the SBC who love Jesus & just want to love their neighbors well. It's also true that corrupt leaders can scuttle their efforts. If you love the people in the pew, you'll stand against those who use them for their own power.
It doesn't matter whether or not the people in the pew know the names of the top leaders in the SBC. There's a whole swath of mid-level leaders who do, who stand between the most powerful & grass roots. What they choose to do makes all the difference to people in the pew.
As a baptist pastor's wife for most of my adult life, I've lived through multiple microcosms of what's playing out right now in the SBC. No, it was never a struggle over millions of $ & millions of congregants, but the dynamics were the same.
If those experiences taught me anything, it's that the work of good, faithful people in the pew can be destroyed by a small minority. The witness of a church can be irrevocably damaged in the community. And faithful leaders cut off at the knees.
Of course, as a leader, you're welcome to keep your position if you are ineffective & paralyzed in it. You're welcome to stand behind the pulpit if you don't say or do anything meaningful. You're welcome to stay as long as you play along. And heaven help those who won't.
But the thing I'll never get over is the very real harm few self-interested leaders can ravage on the souls of the congregation. They are wolves in the flock & they'll terrorize God's people to maintain control.
I have far more stories than I wish I did. I've seen far more sinister things than I ever wanted to. But what breaks my heart are the unexpected casualities--people who just wanted Jesus but who became prey for wolves inside the church.
If you know anything about predatory behavior in nature, it only takes a small pack of predators to terrorize a large flock. Only a few of the sheep will be killed with each attack, but all will be terrorized & scattered.
The call to shepherd God's flock is a call to stand against those people who will happily destroy it for their own interests. It's not about standing behind a pulpit (or laptop) & pontificating. It's includes giving your life to protect the flock.
All that to say, go or stay. Follow God as he calls. But staying in a place means being a faithful presence there. It means standing against those who abuse God's people. You cannot stay & ignore the problems. If you do, you'll end up harming the very people you claim to love.
By the same token, God may call you away, relieving you of responsibility for a particular part of his flock. He may direct your work toward another space. This is not something you choose for yourself or in your own time. But if you leave, it does not mean you've failed.
Corruption in the church is not new. History & the Scripture teach us this much. But what each generation, what each person, must decide is what we will do in the face of such corruption. Will we turn a blind eye to preserve ourselves? Or will we resist it?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I love that churches are thinking this way. It also tells me that we can do this for women in conservative spaces whose primary ministries often function (of necessity) outside the gathered church.
1) Immanuel is not hiring Dr. Moore as a pastor/elder. 2) They are providing him a space & support to do a work that is directed outward, recognizing that it benefits the church universal.
So many women in conservative spaces are caught in the gears of local church polity & their call to ministry. Most are not interested in being named elders or pastors. They just want to do the work the Holy Spirit has gifted & called them to do.
For those following evangelical gender debates can I suggest that there are (at least) 2 streams of conservativism:
1)Those who believe authority stems from maleness.
2)Those who believe certain roles necessitate embodied maleness & authority stems from the role not the body.
I do not have sufficient words to tell you how significant these differences are. And I have a lot of words.
ISTM that this is the real watershed & predicts everything downstream. It also explains why some complementarians find greater affinity w/ patriarchy while some find more partnership w/ egalitarians.
Per previous thread about motherhood, work, & society:
You may rightly respond that fatherhood is also difficult & that men must make choices btwn work & family, too. I don't doubt this. The Q is about shape of society: does it support male embodiment or female embodiment?
Obviously, we are limited beings & we cannot do two things at once. Choice is inherent in this limitation. The Q is the difference btwn inherent choices & manufactured choices. To what degree does our society create *extra* conflict for women beyond that inherent in limitation?
To what degree does the shape of our society accomodate & support the inherent choices of male bodies while adding burden to the inherent choices of female bodies?
The reactions to this piece from @ebruenig are something else. I also became a mother at 25 & while there have been many struggles along the way, I've never once thought they were the result of my children or my own fertility.
Given the nature of our work, our family often moves simultaneously in working class & professional class spaces. In the latter, I'm always among the youngest mothers. But in the former, my peers have adult children & may be grandmothers.
Don't underestimate how much of the rage at @ebruenig's piece is about class & economics & the failure to follow "the success sequence" which demands that you establish your career before having children.
Those conservatives who are truly, convictionally, exegetically conservative irt to gender (& aren't just using the label for cover) are those who make every possible effort to hear women's voices & enable women's giftedness for the sake of the Kingdom.
Those who go out of their way to do the opposite are... something else.
At some point, labels & claims are meaningless. Instead, show me your actions. Show me how you have honored the Holy Spirit's work in & thru *all* God's sons & daughters. Show me how you've removed barriers & equipped them to run fast toward the work He's calling them to.
Biological motherhood within the church =/= spiritual motherhood of & for the church.
Both are beautiful. Both are lifegiving. Both call us into a greater reality for purposes beyond our own self-fulfillment. But one cannot replace the other. And they are not necessarily dependent on each other.
A woman may be called to one or both & will exercise her calling out of deeper resources of faithfulness, service, & love for God & others. But while similar modes of being, biological motherhood & spiritual motherhood are distinct & cannot replace each other.