Thread by @cuatronelson

1/

I don't have the motivation to write a post on this. So you'll have to settle with a thread. #sbc22 #sbc23

Today, @AdamGreenway posted with @BaptistPress on drawing the proper balance b/t cooperation and doctrinal commitments. baptistpress.com/resource-libra…

I understand the argument and overall it's not like the thesis in and of itself is terrible. We would expect a seminary president to argue well. And at end of the day, we certainly will not agree on *everything*.

However, I have two main issues with the article:

1. Dr. Greenway is trying to make an argument that we should partner with churches who have women who serve on staff as pastors so long as they are not senior pastors.

Why is this a problem? a. It goes against the Bible. Read 1 Timothy 3. The office of pastor is for men.

Now, one says, "Oh but they aren't actually serving in the 'office' of Elder. They are just serving in a "pastoral" function in the church."

Well then, the church has now erred in how the Bible and BFM 2000 define offices in the church. Both recognize only 2: Elder & Deacon

And DO NOT miss this point:

b. The *reason* women are serving now on staff as "pastor" and not "minister" or "director" is a capitulation to the culture. They don't want to come across as though women are inferior or whatever to a watching world.

Well, guess what?

Women ARE NOT INFERIOR! And God in His good wisdom has given men and women distinct roles in the home and in the church to show that neither are inferior. You don't have to give women unbiblical titles or roles in order to affirm their importance.

But by endorsing this kind of practice we do not endorse "soft complementarianism" we endorse functional egalitarianism. Or, as one brother put it, "egalitarianism with exceptions."

Here is the 2nd problem I have with Dr. Greenway's article:

2. He is afraid that if we start getting serious about excluding churches with women pastors we may have to get serious about excluding churches who violate the BFM in other ways.

My response: So be it.

Shrink the tent. The SBC is too big. While I would argue that violating the BFM's teaching on the offices of the church is a much bigger issue than the other things Greenway brings up, we must not be opposed to being a more doctrinally cohesive convention.

For some reason, many Platformers think "cooperation" means big budgets. Well, I've seen what big budgets do and I have the Amazon Echos and Free T-shirts to prove it.

We don't need big budgets. We need doctrinal fidelity. We need the fear of God. We have a Book, after all.

Dr. Greenway proves in his article that we have drifted w/ women pastors since 2k: "the number of SBC congregations who in the year 2000 used the title of “pastor” for ministry staff members besides the primary leader of the church pales in comparison to that statistic today."

But his solution is to make our cooperation even broader for the sake of "cooperation."

This is not the way brothers and sisters. Too many in SBC leadership want this machine to continue to balloon out of control, making our doctrinal commitments less and less important.

Enough is enough. We cannot keep judging the cultural winds to then decide where we are going to draw the line doctrinally. We need to stand with our feet firmly planted on the Scriptures and not be embarrassed by our doctrinal convictions we've had since 1845 as a convention.

Be careful what u wish for, Dr. Greenway. Remember that 1 day we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. And there He will not be concerned a/b how much money you kept coming in at @SWBTS, but how faithful you were to His Book. To whom much is given, much is required.

Lastly, I suppose this will be a push in New Orleans. Maybe they will fly out Rick Warren himself. We should pray @bartbarber and others in leadership will push back against this faux complementarianism.