Supporters of full inclusion for gays and lesbians in The United Methodist Church drape the central table in black cloth during a demonstration on the floor of the 2008 United Methodist General Conference

Was perusing Lectionary Homiletics for December as part of my weekly sermon preparation. Noticed how many contributions are from Ed McNulty. Wonder who that is? Do a search. Come across a website that might tell me more. Turns out to be the blog of a very liberal Presbyterian minister who serves a congregation in a town located in northeast Tennessee. Hey wait a minute. I recognize that town. That’s where my wife was born and grew up! And we even visited that church once around Christmas. Even then recall we thought it was a good and interesting experience but we probably would not go back next time we were in town.

Took a few minutes to look over this pastor’s blog. Curious about where he comes from. What his basic views are.

Look – I went to Baptist Theological Seminary of Richmond which is across the street from Union Theological Seminary / Presbyterian School of Christian Education. Cross-registered and took several classes at the historic Presbyterian seminary. Regularly attended their chapel services. Had plenty of Presbyterian friends. Yeah many of them were pretty liberal.

They had nothing on this guy in Tennessee. Compared to him they are staunch traditionalists.

The point is not to knock this active and passionate Presbyterian pastor who happens to serve in my wife’s home town. Just giving some background.

Among his other big causes – which include 9/11 trutherism for which I have little respect or patience along with Peak Oil an issue with which I do have some sympathy – is equality in the Christian church for Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender(?) persons. Fair enough. That is his prerogative.

(In this post I will not specify his name or congregation or URL of his blog. Not out of contempt or disrespect. But because this is not personal - this is not about him but about something he wrote and what it represents. Plus this is one of those times where I would rather not invite conflict.)

Among other things he shares his response to a questionnaire regarding Amendment 10A which has something to do with changing the rules about ordination to Christian ministry in the P(resbyterian)C(hurch)-USA:

How would you respond to those that say that if we pass 10a individuals and congregations will leave the PC(USA)? That question fosters co-dependence and bullying. We need to treat people like adults and expect adult behavior. If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy. Some even have been defrocked. You do the right thing and let the chips fall. I think once the church passes 10a we will become stronger. We certainly will be more in the spirit of Jesus.

This response is the one that jumped out at me the most. Try to follow the reasoning and then I will address the larger implications.

1. People say they will leave if we make this change? That is a form of co-dependence and bullying.

There is some truth to this. People at University Baptist Church occasionally play the “don’t do this or I will leave” card and it can be a form of emotional blackmail. Although this is a difference between “don’t make this change in the time and style of Sunday morning worship” and “don’t make this change in whether or not we ordain people in same-sex relationships to the Christian ministry”.

2. If people really have that much of a problem with this change then they will leave. No one is forcing them to stay or go.

Well that is not entirely true is it? If you belong to an institution or organization because of what it stands for and it makes what you regard as a fundamental change that you believe turns its entire purpose upside down then there is a sense in which yes you are being forced to leave because to stay is a violation of your conscience yes? How many liberals or rather leftists said they would leave the United States if George Bush was re-elected president? Gee why did they say that? Were they being forced to leave? In one sense no – no one was putting a gun to their head. But in other sense yes – because to them it means “I can no longer in good conscience remain a citizen of this nation”. How can someone who presents himself as so liberal and open-minded and understanding and all that good stuff not understand something so basic? That people are forced to leave because to stay represents a violation of their basic convictions? And this pastor cannot say “oh come now that’s no violation of your Christian convictions” because whether that is so or not is not the point. The point is how these persons and congregations view the proposed change.

This above is the most significant part of this pastor’s argument and we will return to it.

3. So we lose some people and churches. Yeah but have we not lost people and churches because of the current policy?

Well first of all consider the Episcopal Church. Have they lost more or gained more what with the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop? Are same-sex couples suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to be baptized? Are people who think same-sex relationships are morally neutral suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to become members? No? Yeah sure a few people are attracted to liberal churches and liberal denominations. But far more leave and/or never seek to join because they are either repulsed or just plain uninterested.

And while we are at it just how many people and churches have they lost because of the current policy? Care to throw out a number with some hard evidence behind it? Or is he just blowing rhetorical smoke?

But that is a weak argument. Ultimately one should do something because it is right not because it is popular. This pastor is aware of that. Well – sometimes. In fact he plays both the we’ll gain more than we lose and the we just need to do the right thing cards in the same paragraph.

We do have to grant one point. If by we’ll be stronger he means that the Presbyterian Church (USA) will no longer be conflicted because of this issue then yes that is probably correct. After the dust settles and many people and churches leave then yes they will have tremendous unity on this otherwise divisive issue. They will be known for their stand and people will join them or not.

Now back to that very significant statement If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy.

This is the painfully obvious point and question.

If the church stands for something that goes against their conscience and convictions and therefore people will be free to leave… and the church currently stands for something that they think is fundamentally wrong… then why don’t they leave?

Why do you seek to radically change this organization/institution to suit your convictions? Why not join some other organization/institution? Why not form your own?

If you do not care for the terms of your marital relationship why does the other person have to leave and you get to keep the house?

Ah… perhaps therein lies the answer.

It is easier to take something that someone else created – not to deny that you may have helped along the way – and change it. That it is to create something new and different that reflects your desires.

See – generations of Presbyterians have lived and given and served and died to help create this denomination. Because of what it stands for. And if change it such that these people think it is radically different – no longer traditional biblical Presbyterian Christianity – then that bothers them very much indeed. They do not want to give up what they built – and yes I recognize that liberals in some sense helped build this house and we can debate the difference that makes or not – to people who want to change it into something they regard as fundamentally different in character and purpose.

But the liberals want to take over change the denomination – and it is about much much more than same-sex relationships and one only has to read this pastor’s blog to recognize that the issue of same-sex relationships is the tip of a much larger theological and ideological iceberg – in ways that traditionalists cannot endure and say oh well no one’s forcing you to stay. So the traditionalists what? give up the churches and seminaries they helped to build? the organizations into which they poured their lives?

They have to leave the house and either move into some other house or starting building a new one from scratch.

Don’t believe me?

Look at the Episcopal Church once again. When Episcopal parishes say “we cannot live with the leadership and directions of this national church” they are not allowed to keep the buildings which they built and paid for (mostly or entirely – yes I am aware of how dioceses play a role in building up parishes). To the victors go the spoils. The losers have to start again.

So why don’t liberal Presbyterians just leave and form their own new denomination? Heck one can even let liberal Presbyterian congregations keep their facilities. Heck we can even let them keep a seminary or two. If they can keep them running.

No – what we see is these innovators would rather take over and co-opt something and change it to be more in line with their point(s) of view.

Melkor did not create the orcs. He could only take what Iluvatar created – men and elves – and change them into orcs. Melkor was not able to create anything original of his own.

Parasites do not produce or create so much as they co-opt other life for their own purposes. No I am not calling liberal Christians parasites. But I will dare suggest that this “we will start doing things you did not imagine when we first got married but you have to leave and we keep the house” attitude is a form of parasitism.

Honesty compels one to suggest some counterarguments.

a. We are not trying to turn our denomination into something different. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. (Diana Butler Bass makes this argument explicitly – although inconsistently because she often appeals to changes in current social and cultural attitudes.)

One must then ask “at what point in the history of the Presbyterian church did a majority of Presbyterian Christians hold these views on Christian faith and practice?”

b. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. You are the ones who have been taking our denomination in a new and wrong direction.

This sounds like the same argument as #a and perhaps it is but it relates to the fundamentalist takeover / conservative resurgence (depends on one’s point of view) in the Southern Baptist Convention. See – liberals are not the only ones who attempt to radically change something. My intent is not to bash the Southern Baptist Convention nor to defame evangelical/conservative friends and brethren. In fact I have started to identify again – partly – with Southern Baptists over the last few years. My goal is to understand their point of view. Moderate Baptists believed that the conservative movement of the 1980′s that was pretty much accomplished by 1990 represented a departure from historic Baptist Christianity. Obviously more conservative Southern Baptists do not see it that way. They believed liberal-moderate denominational leaders and seminary professors were the ones who were beginning to drag the denomination in a wrong direction.

One important difference is that the Southern Baptist Convention by definition could not take buildings and facilities away from more moderate Baptist congregations. Oh we can complain about professors losing their jobs and takeover and radical transformation of denominational institutions and structures. And as a matter of fact moderate Baptists to a large extent did end up having to create something new pretty much from scratch. I know. I went to one such seminary and most of my professors had been forced or pressured into leaving their positions at Southern Baptist seminaries.

(While we are it at surely the reverse is also true – that some conservative Baptists have felt compelled to leave a moderate Baptist congregation.)

But let me reiterate what I think is a key point and a compelling question.

Why do people who represent a minority viewpoint seek to transform an organization/institution/denomination so that it is more in line with their distinct convictions – rather than just leave and start their own?

In fairness I must acknowledge that there may very well be – indeed I assume that there is – a good answer to that question. But I have not figured it out yet.

One of the things I appreciate about the blog Politics, Policy, Pathology and Hope Within The Black Community (how’s that for a blog title?) is how often he asks “why do we focus so much ire and attention on that perceived potential threat to the black community but ignore these constant actual threats?” He puts it well in recent post “Non-racist assaults to the black community – thwarting the racism chasers”:

I have stated previously that as we aggregate all of the threats to the Black community and then stack rank them based upon their threat level, preponderance and proximity – there are more “non-racist” acts that will never be labeled “civil rights violations” against Black people (despite being so) than those which are labeled “RACIST” and thus raise the ire of the NAACP and other leftwing actor-vist groups.

Street pirates killing robbing and terrorizing actual black people versus Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement.

By the way Politics, Policy, Pathology and Hope has been on a roll lately. From one brilliant post a week to something like 2-3 each day. Getting hard to keep up. My only mild warning/critique is that the writing style is not always easy to follow.

Back to the news. So the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People wants to pass a resolution about the Tea Party movement.

Stop by and give some love to Another Black Conservative who addresses the absurdity of the resolution against the Tea Party movement – and also offers a thoughtful defense (and mild critique) of First Lady Michelle Obama.

Once again the NAACP is still trying to fight pre Civil Rights era struggles in a post Civil Rights era world. They will even go after a media made racial boogeyman to do it.  The NAACP is working with the false story from the media that Tea Partiers hurled racial slurs at black congressmen. To date not a single video of the incident has ever emerged and the media itself has seems to drop the story all together. Yet here is the NAACP getting all fired up about it now.  If the NAACP thought there was truth to this story, they should have made noise when it happened, instead of waiting until now.

Why did they wait you ask?  Because the midterm elections are now four months away and the NAACP is more about shilling the leftist agenda than they are about the “advancement of colored people”. Rallying blacks against the Tea Party is more important to the leftist agenda than tackling the real issues facing the black community like poor schools, unemployment or the devastating effects of drugs and crime.

Timothy Dalrymple serves up a gumbo pot full of truth and reason with his essay “Is the Tea Party racist?”

These arguments are, however, mere justifications for a position already taken. Liberals were inclined to believe Tea Partiers racist even before such “evidence” was available. That is, the belief that Tea Partiers are racist is not an evidence-based belief. It is a belief in search of evidence.

What I propose, then, is the Theory of the Missing Motive. Since the education establishment has failed to convey a thorough and unprejudiced perspective on differing political points of view, even highly educated liberals possess a cartoonish, easily-dismissed image of American conservative thought. Liberals cannot believe that Tea Partiers are actually motivated by the passions and the reasons that Tea Partiers claim motivate them, because liberals in general are alienated from those passions and insufficiently educated in those reasons.

It is essentially a failure of imagination. Liberals cannot imagine themselves into a way of thinking in which conservatives do what they do and believe what they believe for good reasons. And since they cannot believe that conservatives are motivated by rational beliefs and admirable motives, they must appeal to darker, more primitive impulses to explain their behavior. The racist motive presents itself as a natural and convenient explanation.

Liberals, in other words, were always going to believe that a movement dominated by white conservatives is racist.

* * *

If you were not already inclined to consider Tea Partiers racist, you would not find the evidence compelling.

Elizabeth Scalia aka The Anchoress also exposes the lack of intellectual honesty behind such charges of “racism”.

“We’re deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we’ve made,” NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. “We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement.

Emphasis mine. Does it matter at all to Ms. McDowell et al. that the rare racist behavior exhibited at any conservative/libertarian gathering is explicitly condemned by the vast majority of tea partiers, and so the repudiation she seeks is already a reality?

Here’s another perspective the NAACP could have offered, had they wished:

“…while there is still work to be done in America, it is heartening to see that when racist behavior is exhibited it is quickly condemned by people of good will in all spheres of society; we work toward the day when racism will exist no more, and the fact that it cannot grab a foothold even among those whose concerns we do not share gives real hope too us, that the dream of Martin Luther King and of so many anonymous, tireless workers for social justice can and will be realized for all God’s children.”

That would be a statement everyone can get behind, because all reasonable people want that. If people really do want to see continuing progress made in converting distrustful hearts and minds, a positive statement like that would be much more effective than the one they’re using.

This country needs someone in authority, somewhere, to acknowledge something good about its people, and to mean it. Lacking that–and we are–such a statement from the NAACP would be something good. And it would have the added benefit of being true.

What does it say when we demand someone do something they have already done? Does it not call into question the sincerity of our demand?

Once again for the record I am not a member of the Tea Party movement although I am sympathetic with its concerns. I think the country is heading in a disastrous direction – and Congress is at least as much to blame as is the Obama administration – and am troubled by apparent efforts to use the racism charge to silence political dissent. First they come for the Tea Parties and all that.

I could get in serious trouble for this.

Let me begin by reminding people that:

• I married my campus minister (and she hates that I keep saying that – sounds like she was some sort of stalker or predator who seduced one of her students when in fact I chased her okay?)
• Who received her seminary degree years before I did
• Who has preached for me on numerous occasions
• I attended a seminary affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
• Where some of my teachers were women
• About half of my classmates were women
• I received one of those “Leadership Scholarships” – so must have been at least somewhat acceptable ideologically to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
• I serve at a church that contributes to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
• I serve with women ministers

But I am increasingly uncomfortable with how fellow moderate Baptist Christians articulate and practice their convictions concerning “women in ministry”. In a nutshell when did “women in ministry” become a central dogma of the Christian faith?

One must immediately and carefully distinguish “women in ministry” from “ordination of women” from “women as pastors-or-priests”. Of course it is precisely such distinctions which fellow moderate Baptist Christians do not appear to accept. Fair enough. But I will so distinguish nonetheless.

One can speak of “women in ministry” without necessarily agreeing with “ordination of women” or “women as pastors-or-priests”. “Ministry” simply means service (here in the context of the life and work of the Christian church). My wife was a campus minister - but is not ordained and has never served as a pastor (or priest – if we were part of a different Christian tradition). She ministered to college students. She has also served as a minister with children and youth. She is functionally one of the ministers with children for Church of the Nations. “Women in ministry” can take a nearly endless variety of forms. Teaching. Preaching. Visiting. Counseling. Organizing. And so on. It is true that some Christians will argue that not every form of “service within the church” is appropriate for women (typically preaching because of its association with the pastoral office?).

One can even speak of “ordination of women” without necessarily agreeing with “women as pastors-or-priests”. This is where both critics and supporters of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement (from the Southern Baptist Convention) have gotten off track. Critics failed to appreciate the careful and limited statement against women as senior pastors. So theoretically one can have women in ministry along with ordained women along even with women as associate pastors and so on. Just not as (senior or sole) pastor of a congregation.

However this has been lost even on supporters of the statement. Since the ratification (adoption?) of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement several churches have been kicked out of associations simply because they had women who were ordained (sometimes on ministerial staff and sometimes not even that). And the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention stopped endorsing or supporting women chaplains. It was intellectual laziness and/or disingenuity for defenders of the statement to argue “we are not against women in ministry – just women as senior pastors” and then on the other hand to target Baptist congregations that had women who were not senior pastors.

My own private beef with “ordination of women” is that it is unclear to me exactly what “ordination” means in the Baptist tradition. We are so ardently anti-sacramentalist in our theology. Everything is a symbol or a memorial. None of our rituals actually does anything in terms of changing reality – right? As far as I can tell ordination in the Baptist tradition means almost nothing more than a change in your tax status. So it is difficult to argue for or against “ordination of women” until we are clear about just what ordination is and what it does theologically and ontologically.

But in the meantime theoretically one can ordain women in the Baptist church without those women serving as (senior or sole) pastors.

Now – back to “women in ministry” as central dogma.

Several years ago David Currie came to speak at University Baptist Church. I remember well when he said the reason many Texas Baptists were unhappy with the direction of the Southern Baptist Convention was “look – we might be fundamentalist but only if we want to” (something along those lines) and “Texas Baptist churches might not have a woman as pastor – but we can if we want to”. The issue then was freedom. A congregation that supported the Cooperated Baptist Fellowship might not have a woman pastor. Might not want a woman pastor. But will not try to stop other Baptist congregations from ordaining women or calling a woman as pastor.

There was a point – when exactly? – when that changed. When the issue was no longer “you can be against women as pastors so long as you do not try to tell others what they cannot do”. But “you must be actively in favor of women as pastors or you are not welcome in this organization”. What once was optional became mandatory.

Some will argue that this is a mistaken impression of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. It may well be. But can we at least agree that while this impression might be technically mistaken it functionally is correct? And so the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship goes out of its way to hold up women in ministry and women as preachers and women as pastors. Please note I am not saying this is wrong.

One sees this explicitly in my own setting.

Let me share an anecdote. A church planter with the North American Mission Board needed some office space. For some bizarre reason he came to us. There were the usual normal and reasonable concerns from the deacons. But I remember one deacon in particular arguing strongly against this. Because this guy represents the Southern Baptist Convention. Which does not support “women in ministry”. Which is against our values and beliefs. And if we let him have some office space we are guilty by association (my words not hers – but that was the gist of her argument).

What struck me is that the issue of women in ministry was her number one and central argument. It was the hill on which this deacon was prepared to die. If these people do not agree with us on women in ministry then we cannot associate with them or give them any material help whatsoever. That is a pretty strong line to take. We can associate with Jewish people and Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Unitarians and work with them on joint projects and have them come and speak to our congregation. But Southern Baptists who do not agree with us on women in ministry – that is going too far.

And now the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Louisiana is pushing the “women in ministry” vector pretty hard. Speakers. Scholarships. The themes of our gatherings. It is all about being missional (where “missional” means what we do is vastly more important than what we profess or teach theologically) and “women in ministry”. These have become the twin poles or central dogmas of moderate Baptists.

Recently former president Jimmy Carter penned a rather strong statement about the role and status of women in the Christian church. It was published as an editorial in the British newspaper The Guardian. The former president does make some good points but they are difficult to extract from the shadow of this singularly weak paragraph:

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

This is the central error in a nutshell. If women are prevented from playing a “full and equal role” then it must be because they are viewed as “somehow inferior”. Many people accept that. Many people I know and respect and with whom I serve accept that.

(I note in passing this paragraph as well:

At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.

I wonder what an informed and competent scholar of church history would make of that. The second sentence is problematic because while historical evidence supports some of his examples it does not support all. Jimmy Carter is another moderate Baptist who fails to make appropriate distinctions. And can his third sentence – that the current state is the result of some misogynistic conspiracy – truly stand up to examination?)

Let me get myself in trouble with fellow moderate Baptists by stating for the record that I do not accept the argument that “if women are equal in status they must have the same roles as men in the life of the Christian church”. I do not dispute that many may believe women should have a different role because they are “somehow inferior” (however one defines that). But I assert and argue that some may believe women have a different role in the Christian church for reasons that have nothing to do with misogyny. Disagree with them if you like. No problem. But at least understand where they are coming from.

(Also problematic is the way Jimmy Carter seems to equate various forms of “subjugation” and “discrimination”. As if Southern Baptist opposition to women as senior pastors is somehow equivalent to genital mutilation and domestic abuse. Offensive nonsense.)

Robert Parham also chimed in with “Blaming Men is Not Good Theology”. It is not a bad article – merely weak. What struck me as peculiar is “women are partly at fault because they support these religious institutions with their money and energy”:

Imagine what would happen if rank-and-file Baptist women launched a religious disobedience movement in the local church. If they said no more offerings and no more volunteer hours, the preachers with power would have a lightning-strike revelation about the full equality of women.

Again – not bad so much as weak. This is a subtle form of solipsism masquerading as reasoned argument. It all comes down to experience. “Preachers with power” would suddenly change their minds not because we make a strong case for the “full equality of women” on historical biblical and theological grounds. So far as I can tell Parham simply assumes from the outset that he is correct – everything then becomes a matter of compelling others to conform.

It is possible to believe that men and women have differing roles in the Christian church – and not because one is somehow inferior to the other?

Yes.

But to make this argument I might have to depart just a tad from typical Baptist theology.

The exceptional Anglican theologian Eric Mascall in his book Corpus Christi begins with an argument concerning the nature of apostolic ministry. Forgive me for quoting in extensio:

I can only reply that this objection seems to be based upon a totally false notion of the kind of superiority that a bishop has to a priest, or a priest to a layman. … Any respect in which there is in fact superiority is surely totally unobjectionable; it is like the superiority which St. Paul ascribes to the eye over the ear and to the hand over the foot, a superiority which is entirely compatible with mutual need and mutual love. And presumably when we are made perfect in heaven, neither will the clergy pride themselves on their ‘superiority’, nor will the laity envy them for it; so what harm will it do? The blessed are able, in Dr. C. S. Lewis’s phrase, ‘to play great parts without pride and little ones without dejection’. [27]

In short – “superiority” of role does not imply superiority of status or value in the eyes of God. Would the truly humble care if their role in the universe is “inferior”? Which leaves one wondering how much such issues are about pride and envy and false notions of worth.

But Baptists do not believe in a “superiority” of clergy over laity – so why should we care about this argument from Mascall?

Then what about the Trinity?

The Church is not only ecclesia de Christo; she is also ecclesia de Trinitate. Her life and unity are the life and unity of the Holy Trinity. The pattern of her life is the pattern of the life of God, into which she is taken up. And the life of God is not an undifferentiated but a a trinitarian life, in which Father, Son and Spirit, though united, are distinct, and in which sonship, with its two aspects of apostleship and priesthood, is not common to all three Persons but is proper to the Son alone. [33]

The persons of the Holy Trinity are “equal”. But they are persons – and each person has a distinct identity and role within the life of the Trinity.

My wife thinks that is a dangerous argument and she may be right. It implies that just as God the Son is submissive to God the Father so women should be submissive to men within the life of the Christian church. I think that is a weak objection. I think a stronger objection might be “wait a second – so are men analogous to the Son or to the Father? you cannot be the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ at the same time can you?”

Correlating sex (male or female) with persons of the Trinity may be a colossal mistake. Perhaps the more relevant consideration is that equality of status does not therefore dictate equality of role. The divine Persons are distinct and with differing roles. So human beings can be equal in value – but as persons be distinct and with differing roles. Did Jesus mind being the Son?

Can all men be ordained pastors or priests? And if we answer “well no – of course not” then are we thereby suggesting some men are somehow inferior to others? This point is frequently lost on the dominant leadership of the Episcopal Church.

One last point – expanding on the Church as the image of the Holy Trinity.

Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America touched on this during his address to the Anglican Church in North America 2009 gathering. He notes (starting around 31:20) that the “blurring of gender may create a larger core of workers” (a common argument for why women should have fully equal roles in the Christian church – and is one I have used the most) “but it destroys authentic personhood, it destroys authentic masculinity, it destroys authentic womanhood”. Here he is not addressing specifically the issue of “women in ministry”.

Later he does (starting around 49:00). He asserts that the new Anglican province must resolve the issue of “the ordination of women”.

I believe in women’s ministry. I believe that women have a critical role to play in the life of the Church. But I do not believe it’s in the presbyterate or the episcopate [as priests or as bishops]. Forgive me if this offends you. But this is the universal experience and vision and opinion and position of the Greek Orthodox World the Roman Catholic world and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches.

This is a very important issue. And the issue is not so much about ordination – that’s the negative side of it.  The positive side – how can we come together to creatively find the right context for women’s ministry in the Church which is so critical?

Please do not think that there is any misogyny here. Not a bit.

So what am I saying? That I have changed my mind? That I am against women in ministry? or ordaining women? or women as pastors (or priests)?

No.

What I am saying is it appears some moderate Baptists are making “women in ministry” as one of their central dogmas. That it is an understandable but serious mistake to equate “women do not have the same role as some men” with “they are somehow inferior”. That they fail to understand adequately and fairly why some traditions distinguish the role of women from that of some men in the Christian church – even if still they disagree!

John Smyth

Oh dear. There is something just wrong about saying “I am not participating in this particular forum any more” and then responding to comments which recently have appeared on that forum. It is like those celebrities or politicians who “respond” to each other on camera or in print – but never have the courtesy to speak to and with each other if in private.

You understand I am criticizing myself here.

But with so much traffic from there this week – perhaps I need to reply.

1) “Rick Wright is not comfortable with the CBF because he’s clearly uncomfortable being a Baptist”. There may be some truth to that overstatement. I do not have any current plans to convert to any other Christian tradition – although for about one year seriously considered even pursued the possibility. Like most people I strive to understand better the Christian faith. In recent years this has generated an increased concern for “orthodox theology”. Not because correct beliefs are super important in and of themselves. But because they matter in terms of our mission, our worship, our spiritual formation, and our life in communion (ecclesiology). Even in seminary I was much more open to and fond of creeds in Baptist life. I am aware many Baptists would disagree with me strongly on this point.

2) I would suggest however that perhaps I understand being “Baptist” a little differently from some. To me the quintessence of the Baptist vision is – in a word – freedom. But if the heart of being Baptist is freedom – then Baptists are free to embrace “orthodox” theology and practice and even ecclesiology. And yes that means weird “un-Baptist” things like creeds and sacramental theology. I am aware many Baptists would disagree with me strongly on this point. They would probably argue that even if freedom is the heart of being Baptist – that this freedom expresses itself and must express itself in certain concrete patterns of belief and practice. They might be right.

3) But even then – can we look to other Christian traditions for wisdom and insights and even specific ways of practicing the Christian faith? I do not ask others this so much as myself. To what extent can one study Anglicanism or Catholicism or Orthodoxy or Judaism and so on – and learn/borrow/adapt from them – without going ahead and converting?

4) It was concern for (the health and survival of) Anglicanism that led to increased interest in Orthodoxy. I have been haunted by a conversation with a friend who is the only evangelical Episcopal clergy in the diocese in which he said that if the Anglican Communion falls apart that would mean “the Protestant experiment is a failure”. I also have been haunted by something Episcopal Bishop Charles Jenkins said when a close friend was ordained a deacon: “It is the nature of fallen humanity to seek community which pleases”. I wonder if Protestantism is inherently incoherent. By that I mean so much comes down to what you (singular) think and feel. Yes we speak of biblical authority and the lordship of Jesus Christ – but how we understand and interpret and apply these is still largely a matter of personal feeling and opinion. No wonder then if Protestantism (by nature?) fragments. I could be wrong about this – just sharing thoughts and impressions.

5) Which is why I have been wondering if Orthodoxy offers solutions to many of these problems that seem to plague Protestant Christianity. My “orthodox” Anglican clergy friends agree strongly. I can understand if Baptist friends do not. Maybe I should just convert. I do not know that and am not planning on it.

6) So yes – there are times I would like to see more “orthodox theology” in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Although one can understand if people are uncomfortable with that given the excesses they experienced in the Southern Baptist Convention. And I am indeed impatient with the whole “more Baptist than you are” debate – which one hears from Southern Baptist and moderate Baptists alike. I acknowledge this attitude may reflect a lack of appreciation for “Baptist battles” and those who experienced them. My seminary professor Cecil Sherman would probably give me a compassionate pastoral scolding. But I do believe “we should be more concerned with being Christian than with being Baptist”.

7) To make a short answer long – I think both our excellent friend in Texas and in Kentucky are largely correct. Even if it looks like they are disagreeing. But then that is how I handle a whole bunch of issues – that the answer is not either/or but more both/and.

One last visit to the resource fair at the General Assembly 2009 of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in Houston. Last year I attended a workshop on ministry opportunities in China and thought “I would love to do that” – and was then flabbergasted at how difficult it was to get straight answers about who to contact and how to become involved. Someone this year said “you need to talk to Volunteers for China”. Of course I knew of this group but was willing to talk with them again.

This is in no way whatsoever a critique of that group – I may indeed look into joining them for one of their teaching trips to China. And the person with whom I spoke was passionate and helpful. But – and I am not quite sure how this came up – at one point she said:

Who knows what will happen? I mean we thought America would never elect a black president. And Obama was elected! They just love him over there. Everybody loves him. And now they are going to be even more open [to the gospel - listening to and responding to the Christian faith]. God is using the election of Obama. Because the world is going to be much more open to Americans and to the gospel.

Granted that is a rough paraphrase from memory. Maybe not exactly what and how she said but pretty close.

I was stunned. It was all I could do to refrain from saying “are you kidding?!? Do you seriously think the world is going to love America more just because Obama is president? And if everybody loves him as you say – why do they love him? Do they have reasons for this?”

There is actually some possible/probable truth to what she said. At the ACMI 2009 conference outside Los Angeles one speaker discussed how one of the founders of radical Islam was appalled by the degree of racism when he visited the United States (several decades ago). In other words one of the reason at least some people in other countries are so anti-American is because they have been horrified by our history of racism. That is why no matter how much I was against the election of (then Senator) Obama I could at the very least be genuinely glad that finally we had elected an “African-American” (in quotes because his background and ethnicity are atypical) as president. Finally!

So the election of a “black President” just may indeed foster a new “openness” toward America toward Americans and by extension toward the Christian faith. (“By extension” in the sense that when Christian Americans speak with people from or in other nations – those persons might be more receptive to what these Americans have to share. I categorically reject the notion that we are a “Christian nation” or that the purpose of America is to spread the Christian faith.) It is less likely that people in or from other nations will say “why should I listen to what a racist American from a racist America has to say?”

Now we may ask legitimately if there is any hard evidence that any of this is true. Do we have hard evidence that “foreigners” (of course we are the foreigners when we visit other nations) were less open to Americans and to the Christian faith of Americans before the election of President Obama? and are now more open because of the election of President Obama? Or is this all supposition and imagination and fantasy?