Why Not Ordain Women?
By David Flick

I was born a Southern Baptist.  I once believed that I would most likely die a Southern Baptist.  That is, if the Southern Baptist Convention didn't die before I do. Things have changed.  I'm no longer a Southern Baptist. I'm an American Baptist (ABC-USA) and am active with the Cooperating Baptist Fellowship of Oklahoma (CBFO).  There will probably always be a denomination that bears the name, "Southern Baptist Convention." But the SBC of 2002 is far from being anything like the SBC I was born and reared in. The denomination is but a shadow of its former self.

In 1979, the SBC took a dive and began sliding head-long into fundamentalism. We can thank Paul Pressler, Paige Patterson, and W. A. Criswell for this movement. Pressler, Patterson, and Criswell were/are modern Southern Baptist "Chicken Littles." They falsely believed that the denomination was on a slippery slope into liberalism and cried that the sky is falling in on the denomination. Whereas  Southern Baptists had always been theologically conservative, today they are firmly entrenched in fundamentalism. The fundamentalism of the SBC borders on the radical side.

Throughout the past twenty-two years, the Southern Baptist leadership has been a manipulative, power-hungry, male chauvinist group of men.  Their methods of grabbing power have been devious and deceptive. Through devious manipulation, they have transformed the denomination into an ecclesiastical hierarchy that resembles the Catholic church. Paul Pressler, a secular politician  by trade (a Texas lawyer and former Texas state legislator and Judge) introduced a secular brand of politics into denominational life.

 Secular politicians have always been power-hungry.  Pressler and friends are no exceptions. They manipulate government through heavy-handed power-plays. After the introduction of secular-style politics into denominational life, Southern Baptist ecclesiology flexed from being congregational democracy to being a quasi-episcopal form of church government. Today, manipulative, power-hungry leaders are determined to push the denomination in the direction of their own personal prejudices.  A congregational democratic ecclesiology posits that denominational and theological decisions begin and are finalized at the congregational level. Episcopal ecclesiology posits that denominational and theological decisions are established and maintained by the denominational leadership.

The introduction of secular style politics into denominational life is viewed from two perspectives. The fundamentalist Southern Baptists who introduced this new ecclesiastical system into denominational life view recent Southern Baptist history as being a "conservative resurgence." Moderate Southern Baptists view it as a "denominational takeover."  Being a moderate Southern Baptist, I view the events of the past twenty-two years as a heavy-handed denominational takeover that was led by manipulative and deceptive, power-hungry leaders.

In 1998, the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, in the person of Tom Elliff, appointed a committee to add a new article to the Baptist Faith and Message. The purpose of the committee was to create an additional article to the confession which speaks to the family. The article (Article XVIII, "The Family") which was supposed to address family life, instead,  subtlety spoke more to women's issues than to the family.

The article has since become known as the "Submissive Women" article.  It was a subtle attempt to force a narrower view of women into the Southern Baptist confession of faith.  The article declares that women are to be totally submitted to their husbands in family and church life.  Men are to be superior to women in both the church and home. According to the article, men are considered to hold superior position in family life and women hold the inferior.  As such, it puts women in a second-class role in both  family and church life.

I once believed the Bible teaches the superiority of the masculine gender. Having matured in my thinking and understanding of the Bible,  I  have changed my views on this issue.  I changed  because I don't believe God discriminates on the basis of gender.  Discrimination on the basis of gender is a first century cultural issue. Gender discrimination is not an issue with God and should not be with the 21st century church.

The makeup of the committee that drafted the "Family" article almost perfectly reflected the radical fundamentalism of the SBC leadership. It was a high profile committee that contained absolutely no diversity.  It  was appointed by Tom Elliff, (Pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church in Del City, OK). The lack of diversity on the committee can be illustrated by examining the committee. First, Elliff appointed his good friend, and fellow fundamentalist Oklahoman,  Anthony Jordan (Executive Director-Treasurer of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma) to be the chairman of the committee.

It isn't difficult to observe that appointing Jordan to be the chairman of the study committee was a quantum leap to assure that the entire committee would be firmly fundamentalist.  It also gave Jordan an important "day in the sun," solidifying his position in the upper echelon of SBC fundamentalist leadership.  Having served in the same state convention with Jordan, I have observed that he enjoys the limelight and denominational power that goes with it.

In addition to Anthony Jordan, Elliff appointed his own brother,  Bill Elliff, who is pastor of the First Baptist Church in Little Rock, Arkansas. One could almost say that the study committee for the crafting of the of Article XVIII was an "all in the family" affair.  There isn't much diversity when you consider Anthony Jordan lumped together with Tom and Bill Elliff. All three men are strongly fundamentalist in theology and denominational politics.

Rounding out the committee were:  Richard Land (President of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention); Mary Mohler, (wife of Southern Seminary President, Albert Mohler, and  Homemaker and Director of the Seminary Wives Institute of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary); Dorothy Patterson (wife of Southeastern Seminary President, Paige Patterson and homemaker and adjunct faculty member of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary); Damon Shook (Pastor of Champion Forest Baptist Church, Houston, Texas); and, John Sullivan (Executive Director-Treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention)

Analyzing the committee, one finds it completely loaded with fundamentalists.  There are two  pastors, (one being the sibling to the '97-'98 SBC President); two women, (both of whom are wives of seminary presidents); two state convention Executive Directors (both of whom are powerful leaders of powerful fundamentalist state conventions); and a  denominational agency head (who, concerning women, is solidly in line with the fundamentalist thinking of the top denominational leadership).  It is interesting to note that the two women, being wives of seminary presidents who  strongly support the idea of "submissive wives," are themselves on record as being prime examples of submissive wives.  If they are indeed "submissive wives," there is a possibility that both Al Mohler and Paige Patterson had the final say in what their women actually contributed to the process. It would not be beyond the realm of possibilities that Mohler and Patterson actually sat in on the committee proceedings, taking an active part in the crafting of the article. If not, then it is a given that the influence of these men was strongly felt as the article was being crafted.

The Southern Baptist Convention has never reflected the same degree of fundamentalist thinking that this "select" committee possessed.  Furthermore, the committee did not reflect the diversity found in Southern Baptist life today.  Pure and simple, the "Family" article committee was stacked to the hilt.  It was stacked by the strong-armed fundamentalist leadership.  Evidence of this can be seen in the rise of the moderate  movement among Southern Baptists.  The fundamentalists were, through the takeover, the crafting of Article XVIII, and the rewriting of the '63 Baptist Faith and Message, taking Southern Baptists in a direction it had never before gone. Southern Baptists had always been generally conservative in theology, but never generally fundamentalist.  The purpose and intent of the study committee that crafted Article XVIII was to drive the denomination further toward a radical form of fundamentalism. They will deny it, but intensity of the controversy in the denomination over the past twenty-two years bears witness to this.

Concerning the women's issue, the revised 2000 Baptist Faith and Message executed one better than the crafters of Article XVIII.  In truth, the introduction of Article XVIII paved the way for the revisers of the 2KBF&M.  Article XVIII was a trial balloon as much as anything.  The fundamentalist knew that if they could successfully make a small change to the BF&M, It would be easier to execute major changes  in the future. Whereas, Article XVIII declared that women were bound to be submitted to men in the family, the 2KBF&M declared that women were bound to be submitted to men in church life.

The 2KBF&M added a gender prejudiced sentence to Article VI ("The Church") It was:

While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

Whatever else one may conclude from this addition, it is clear that the denominational powers that be strongly believe that women are not qualified to be pastors of local churches. Of course, it comes from a literal interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2 (A bishop must then be... the husband of one wife). This view interprets the passage with a 1st century cultural twist. Paul wrote to 1st century church with 1st century cultural norms in mind. But what does it say to the 21st century church? Mostly nothing. I do not believe God intended for first century gender norms to be the paradigm for 21st century Christians.

  It is interesting to note that Article VI ("The Church") in the 2KBF&M says nothing about female deacons. It speaks exclusively to pastors.  Since the Bible speaks to both pastors and deacons, one wonders why the Article VI does not speak to both. A probable answer is the fundamentalists have no answer for Phoebe (Rom. 16:1) who was a female deacon.

My critics declare that I'm culturalizing the Bible when I interpret it as I do. As I thought about it, I decided that I might be doing this.  However, if I am  culturalizing the Bible, then so are the fundamentalists. Whereas, I attempt to express my theology reflecting the current cultural gender norms, the fundamentalists attempt to use the Scriptures to superimpose 1st century cultural gender norms on 21st century Christians. But the term, "culturalizing the Bible" is so vague as to have little meaning for me. I subsequently decided that the Bible cannot be "culturalized." I believe the Bible fits all cultures for all times.  As such, it speaks to every century, generation, and culture.  Inasmuch as Paul was living in a 1st century culture, he used a 1st century paradigm for the churches concerning pastors and deacons. The cultural gender norm in the 1st century was that men are superior to women in every facet of life, including the church.  I believe it borders on the ridiculous to superimpose a 1st century cultural gender paradigm on the 21st century church.

A curious note about the revised Article VI of 2000 Baptist Faith & Message should be observed here. 

 (a comparison showing deletions and additions to the 2KBF&M)
Article VI.    The Church
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local body congregation of baptized believers, who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, committed to His teachings,  governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.  The church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Christ.    In such a congregation members are equally responsible is responsible.  Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord.   Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.  While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The '63BF&M stated that the church is a local body of believers that is committed to the teachings of Christ.  The revisionists struck "body" and inserted "congregation."  Furthermore, they struck "committed to His teachings" and inserted "governed by His laws" The intent here is obvious. The revisionists are changing the theology for the church to reflect a new form of legalism.  Whereas the '63BF&M declared that the church (believers) should be voluntarily "committed" to the teachings of Christ, the 2KBF&M declares that the church (believers) is under "law."  This is legalism in its purest form.  Having inserted the legalism clause and adding the gender statement to the confession, the message of the revisionists is clear.  It is now the law that the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by scripture.  Of course, the law is qualified by the fundamentalist and based on their exclusive interpretation of Scripture.  I doubt that many Southern Baptists realize what the revisionists perpetrated on the denomination with this subtle change.

Whereas I once strongly believed as my fundamentalist brothers do on women's issues, I have changed.  This change has come for me in the past decade. It was slow, to be sure. I had to face the issue first hand before I realized my error. My own daughter was the source of my change in beliefs. Here is my personal testimony.

Following my daughter's graduation from Oklahoma Baptist University, she moved to Denton, Texas and enrolled in the University of North Texas to earn a masters degree in music. Being the good preacher's daughter she is, DaLeesa determined to become actively involved in a Southern Baptist church upon her arrival in Texas. She immediately located a church in which to worship. Her first visit in the search was to Southmont Baptist Church in Denton, a church located not more than a mile from her apartment. She was not concerned about anything but finding a church in which she could be comfortably involved.

Having no sense of the difference between fundamentalist, conservative, and moderate Southern Baptist churches, she did not question the theological bent of Southmont. She did not realize Southmont was a moderate church or that it affiliated with Baptist General Convention of Texas. She was suitably impressed with the congregation and  immediately transferred her membership.

DaLeesa spent about three years in Denton.  The reason for the extended time beyond her graduation from  UNT was that she met and married a young man who was completing his PhD at UNT. They moved to Krum, which is about ten miles northwest of Denton. John joined Southmont and became actively involved in the church with DaLeesa.  From the beginning, she was actively involved in church life, playing the piano,  joining the orchestra, teaching a Sunday School class, and even directing a singles department.  

About two years after joining Southmont, DaLeesa was nominated to be a deacon in the congregation. When she notified me of this turn of events, I was horrified. One of my biggest concerns was that I feared the negative impact this could have on me.  I was serving a church with some powerful people who opposed women in prominent leadership positions. The general feeling of the First Baptist Church in Dewey, OK is that women are to be submissive to their husbands and the male leadership in the church. This was especially true of some of the deacons in the church.

 Through an odd coincidence, one of the deacons at Dewey FBC  was Kenneth Fritz. Ken is both the son of an old time Southern Baptist pastor and the uncle of Anthony Jordan, who is the Executive Director of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. On several occasions, I very lightly, and in a non-threatening manner,  publicly questioned the Southern Baptist position on women's ordination. While I never revealed DaLeesa's nomination to be a deacon in a Texas church, I wanted to soften the blow on Ken, should he discover this information. If I had revealed DaLeesa's nomination, my pastoral position could have been in serious jeopardy. Ken's view of women in prominent places of  leadership in the church, especially in the offices of deacon and pastor, is ultra-fundamentalist. He was vehemently  opposed for his wife, Dora Lee, to even teach men in Sunday School. 

While I was serving DFBC, I led the church to call one of her own to be a full-time  Minister of Youth. The kicker for Ken was that the Minister of Youth was female. Teri Fink was, and still is, next to incredible with youth.  She had grown up in the church, being the daughter of a deacon and married a deacon. In my opinion, Teri was the best Minister of Youth that DFBC has ever known. During her time at DFBC, she performed an incredible ministry to girls in the church and community who became pregnant out of wedlock. She was a natural leader of youth and children. She led the youth and children in every facet of church life.  She directed the Vacation Bible Schools. She took them to church camps. She took them on mission trips. She, better than anyone I've ever known, taught DFBC youth and children how to be Christian and minister as Christians.

Teri was a tremendous source of pain for Ken Fritz. I had no intention of leading the church to ordain Teri, but Ken continually thought that would be just around the corner. He was bound and determined to prevent the ordination of a female in DFBC.  He wanted no part in female ordination and didn't want the church to have any part in it. Had I pushed for Teri's ordination, it likely would have been the end of my ministry there.

I insisted that Teri have the title of Minister of Youth.  After all, that's what we called her to do. Ken insisted that we should call her "Youth Director," not "Minister of Youth." He felt that he could live with the situation if we changed the her title.  For the life of me, I don't know what difference a change in the title would have made. She was going to be doing the same task.  In my mind, "Minister of Youth" was the most appropriate title. Because she was, in actuality,  ministering to youth rather than directing them. Ken was forever griping for me to change her title and print it in the bulletin as "Youth Director." He deplored seeing "Minister of Youth" beside Teri's name. It was both humorous and sad to see Ken behave in this manner.

Another major point of stress developed between Ken and me when I conducted  the commissioning of a woman from our association. The commissioning service occurred in a church outside our association. Judy Conner, from Ramona, OK, had received chaplaincy training and was doing chaplaincy ministry at Jane Phillips Memorial Hospital in Bartlesville. She was also doing chaplaincy ministry in Tulsa.  She had long been a member of Ramona First Baptist Church but changed her membership to a church north of Tulsa because of stresses which had arisen from her "doing preacher work." I had, and still have,  great respect for her skill and compassion to do chaplaincy ministry.

Knowing that Southern Baptists do not traditionally ordain women to ministry, Judy sought to a have formal commissioning service to chaplaincy ministry, one involving the laying on of hands by the congregation. The service was held in a church near Tulsa,  just outside of Washington-Osage Association geographical boundary. She asked me to deliver the commissioning charge and lead in the service. It was not an ordination service, simply a commissioning service. I participated in the service, including joining the congregation in laying hands on her. It was a beautiful and moving service.

At that particular time in my ministry, with DaLeesa's pending ordination, I was very seriously questioning  my personal beliefs about the ordination of women. I did not tell Ken that I was going to be involved in Judy's commissioning service. Since it was held outside the association, and several miles away from Dewey, I reasoned that Ken Fritz would never hear about the service. I further reasoned that what he didn't know wouldn't hurt him.

But he did find out. I don't know how he learned about the service, but he was angry that his pastor had "laid hands on a woman."  It was as though I had become a heretic of the worst order.  Ken accused me of "ordaining a woman."  I had not. It was a simple commissioning service. He stated that the Bible is completely opposed to such a thing. He was more than angry and would have had my head if he thought he could have gotten it.  I think I made the right choice in that situation. I ignored Ken and his attempts to "straighten me out" theologically. I never gave him the opportunity to take me to task on the issue. That drove another wedge in our pastor/deacon relationship.

Both the Minister of Youth and the commissioning service incidents occurred near the time I received news from DaLeesa concerning her pending ordination. I became somewhat paranoid about that.  My first thought was,  "What will my peers think about me having an ordained daughter?" My second thought was, "What will the leadership of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma think about this turn of events.  My third thought was, "Will I be considered a heretic by my church, association, and the state convention?   My fourth thought, and worst of all, was, "What will my own church think about DaLeesa and me?" Here I was, as I thought about it, a pastor of conservative Southern Baptist Church and was going off my rocker into sheer liberalism. My fundamentalist friends on the internet had already called me a "liberal who doesn't believe the Bible." DaLeesa's pending ordination forced me to do an unusual amount of serious of soul searching. What did I really believe about the ordination of women?

I decided to attack the problem head-on.  I was determined to settle the question once and for all for myself.  I determined to do it based entirely on the Bible, wanting very much to ignore Southern Baptists traditions. I was sick and tired of riding the fence.  My personality will not allow me to stand between positions.  It had to be an "either/or" decision.  I was determined to establish a firm position either totally against women's ordination or totally for it. I approached the issue with the presupposition that the Bible teaches in opposition to female ordination. 

 I sat down at my computer and determined to write an airtight theological defense against ordaining women. I was preparing it as much for DaLeesa as for myself. I began to consider the proof-texts concerning ordination, beginning with the Timothy passages.  I considered the cultural aspects of the gender question for both the 1st and the 21st centuries. I considered what I felt God commanded/demanded in the Bible. I even considered the historical traditions of Southern Baptists. The pressing questions became:

1) Does God discriminate on the basis of gender?  If so, then ordaining women is patently and biblically wrong. If not, then why not ordain women? 

2) Does the 1st century cultural view of male superiority and female  inferiority figure into the equation? In other words, should the 1st century gender norms govern the 21st century gender norms? If so, then ordaining women is patently and biblically wrong. If not, then why not ordain women? 

3) Does the literal reading of 1Timothy 3:12 (Let the deacons [diakonos] be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.) mean that deacons are to be exclusive male?  If so, what am I going to do with the literal reading of  Romans 16:1 (I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant [diakonos] of the church, which is at Cenchrea? If I go with the Timothy passage, then ordaining women is patently and biblically wrong. If I go with the Romans passage, then why not ordain women?

With the last question, I had an additional query. Why did the translators of the Bible render the Greek word, diakonos, to be "deacons" in 1 Timothy, and the identical Greek word to be "servant" in Romans? I wondered long and hard on it, going to several commentaries. I never found a satisfactory answer.  I concluded that the 17th century translators must have had the same cultural prejudices toward women that Paul and the 1st century believers had.

I wrestled with this issue long and hard. It was not easy to consider that I might have been wrong about my beliefs. It was haunting to even consider that I was wrong. Pride and peer pressure have a way of locking a person into a particular view of Scripture.  I was ready to shed the pride, but shedding the peer pressure was very difficult. I had been raised to believe that women are not qualified for certain offices in the church, including pastor and deacon.  This was what my forbearers had taught me.  This was the tradition of Southern Baptists in my little corner of the world. And with the advent of Article XVIII and the changes made in the 2KBF&M, there seemed to be additional pressure for me to bow to the leaders who were tightening their theological noose around my neck.  I felt tremendous fear of being rejected by my peers and my denomination.

Ultimately, after having given prayer and serious thought to this question, I have moved 180 degrees. I maintain that gender is a cultural issue, not a theological one.  I maintain that God does not discriminate on the basis of gender.  I maintain that those who use Scripture fight hard against the ordination of women are doing so from a very questionable interpretation of the same.

Some of my friends say that Baptist churches who ordain women are committing sin. They further say that persons who knowingly remain members of such churches are "habitual sinners." It would be shameful for a believer to remain a member of a church of "habitual sinners." I believe this is beyond ridiculous. In the final analysis, it's a local church question. Baptist churches pride themselves on being locally autonomous. Local church autonomy precludes confessional changes and outside ecclesiastical interference by other churches. When our denominational confession of faith ( i.e. The Baptist Faith and Message) attempts to control all churches on such matters as women's ordination, the confession crosses the boundary and attacks local  church autonomy.

When are Southern Baptists going to wake up to the fact that God is not going destroy churches that ordain women? When are Southern Baptists going to mature enough to understand that it isn't a sin to ordain women? Since God himself does not discriminate on the basis of gender, why should Southern Baptists? Aside from being a fundamentalist gender exclusionist issue, why should women not be chosen and ordained to be both deacons and pastors? I see no reason why not. Certainly not anymore.

-- May 29, 2002

 (This article was written for  BaptistLife.Com Discussion Forums)