Paige Patterson controversy; women in the SBC
I have followed this situation over the last few weeks with dismay.
It is sad that someone who served the denomination has been shamed. However, his shame was largely self-inflicted. Public persons cannot be glib. Their public pronouncements must be wise and guarded. This gentleman's apparently were not.
The larger question is where women stand (or sit) in the Convention. I am keenly aware that women's ideas are often devalued or marginalized. While I remain in the Convention and am not troubled by the ban on women in senior pastoral leadership, I think most of the men approach the question of women's leadership as a false slippery slope argument: if we let a woman be in leadership, the sky will fall and before you know it gays will be ordained. My own church (although I think this will change) has one woman on pastoral staff and that is the children's minister. There should be more; there should at least be a female associate pastor and deaconesses.
I am a 62-year-old woman with a Bible college degree, two master's degrees and a doctorate, with 40 years' experience in higher education, many in administrative leadership, and even more years in ministry, several publishing credits, a well-raised child and massive life experience. My opinion and views and leadership ability should count more than a 22-year-old male's.
Yes, that is a bit pretentious, but I would say the same for my female companions. Women in general are devalued in the Convention, despite what they do. Women of a certain age and marital status are particularly devalued.
Chromosomes aren't everything. Women's roles in the New Testament are not confined to one verse in Paul's writing addressing a particularly fractious church.
It is sad that someone who served the denomination has been shamed. However, his shame was largely self-inflicted. Public persons cannot be glib. Their public pronouncements must be wise and guarded. This gentleman's apparently were not.
The larger question is where women stand (or sit) in the Convention. I am keenly aware that women's ideas are often devalued or marginalized. While I remain in the Convention and am not troubled by the ban on women in senior pastoral leadership, I think most of the men approach the question of women's leadership as a false slippery slope argument: if we let a woman be in leadership, the sky will fall and before you know it gays will be ordained. My own church (although I think this will change) has one woman on pastoral staff and that is the children's minister. There should be more; there should at least be a female associate pastor and deaconesses.
I am a 62-year-old woman with a Bible college degree, two master's degrees and a doctorate, with 40 years' experience in higher education, many in administrative leadership, and even more years in ministry, several publishing credits, a well-raised child and massive life experience. My opinion and views and leadership ability should count more than a 22-year-old male's.
Yes, that is a bit pretentious, but I would say the same for my female companions. Women in general are devalued in the Convention, despite what they do. Women of a certain age and marital status are particularly devalued.
Chromosomes aren't everything. Women's roles in the New Testament are not confined to one verse in Paul's writing addressing a particularly fractious church.
Comments