Thursday
Nov202003
Stop the Fellowship, I want off
Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 10:14AM
I finally received an e-mail on the whole Fellowship gender issue from a conservative pastor, announcing the formation of the Coalition of Conservative Baptists in the Fellowship - a sub-denomination of sorts. It's full of language like tragic fiasco, taking a stand for the truth, slippery slope of liberalism and feminism. To those who disagree, it says "[It] is not a theological concept. It is, to us, sin...Leave us as a Fellowship in peace." It promises to resurrect the issue at next year's Convention. Sadly, this view has more support than you might think in our Fellowship. If there's one positive thing about the e-mail I received, it's that it's so over the top that it might drive people into a more moderate position. Or maybe not. I just don't have the time anymore.
Reader Comments (20)
The leadership of the Fellowship really has to deal with this, but I doubt they have the even the foggiest clue of where to start. Their performance (or lack thereof) at Convention showed that pretty clearly. I'm feeling more and more that we need to be united on the "die for" doctines, and I'm sorry, but this is not one of those. My preferences aside, will Willow Creek be chastised on the Lord's return for ordaining women to eldership? Or will they recieve a "well done" for the thousands of people they have brought to faith in Christ. Seems like a no-brainer. I got the same missive you did, and sadly, I'm embarrassed to be associated with this guy. I'm sure he's zealous for what he believes is right, but he's just.... wrong.
I'm sad to hear this. But just as Brian here has said, the Lord will be the final judge of this issue. Thanks for pouring out your heart on this subject, its a very touchy one. Thankfully I am a part of a denomination (foursquare) which understands the cultural signifcance of the scripture in question, and sees any person who is educated enough in the scripture to be worthy of serving in leadership (including pastorship) regardless of gender. It's not perfect, I don't think any denomination is, but I do like that we work with other denomniations, and don't believe we are the only right way, just one way of worshipping, and serving God, which in my opinion is all that matters.
I'll be honest I haven't really studied this issue. The church I am becoming a part of says that it is not a matter of equality but rather a matter of roles. Men and women are all the same and equal before God but have different God ordained roles in life and in the church. My impression is that is in line with what Scripture teaches. Are there any examples in Scripture of women elders or deacons or apostles?
I think there are two questions here: the one you proposed, George, which is pretty involved. The other issue is whether we should demand uniformity from other churches in this issue. Even if you take the position that women shouldn't be elders or deacons, which is a legitimate position (not necessarily mine), you still don't have to call those who disagree with you sinful and ask them to leave, which is what the e-mail does.
If the guy's stand is based on an interpretation that us women are prohibited from being pastors then why shouldn't he have the right to call it a sin to be a woman pastor and sinful for others to promote it. To me it follows logically. If you disagree with his position that's one thing, but sounds like you're not giving him the courtesy you want him to afford you.
Trish, I don't buy into your premise: that anyone who holds a theological position of any type should be welcomed as they try to co-opt an entire denomination and split it. I promised myself I'm not going to get into justifying why I'm disgusted with the e-mail. I would cringe even if I agreed 100% with his position.
I don't think it's right of you to portray this guy (and the whole group) in the nasty way you did without posting the whole email. By just taking excerpts in the way you did, you can put any spin you want on it. You haven't exactly returned grace back in this whole women in leadship situation.
You're not getting objective reporting here. This isn't a news site. You're getting my life and my world. So yes, you're getting my opinions and my spin. I think I'm allowed to say I'm disturbed by something. You can disagree, but in the end, that's okay and we don't have to prove why our reaction is valid to the other. That being said, I'll send anyone I trust (and that includes you, Jacob) a copy of the e-mail. I considered posting it, but I couldn't see what good would come of it. As for grace, I hope I'm extending grace to him. I know where he's coming from. I don't object to his position as such, but the fighting spirit. Yes, I'm aware of the irony: I'm a bit feisty in reacting to someone who's feisty. One final word: I would react just as strongly to someone from my side who told the complementarians that they were a bunch of sinners and they should leave. Where did I get the right to say that? It's not justified on either side. I really don't have the stomach to fight this in the comments section. The e-mail comes from someone who is very well-meaning and a brother, but that doesn't excuse that what he said is inappropriate.
Maybe I don't see the whole picture. Maybe I'm on a different plane. In my humble opinion, anyone attempting to change a long-standing and an arguably defensible scriptural position held by the Fellowship and it's churchs for many years, and failing to do so by convincing arguments from Scripture, should be subjected to a great deal of scrutiny as well as possibly be considered to be seditious at the very least. Who stands to split the Fellowship: those defending an attack upon an already established Scriptural stance, or those levelling the challenge?
WHOA! My brother just left a comment. I'm impressed! David, I agree. The unspoken position has always been complementarian. But beyond that, we've agreed not to be bound by tradition. Rather, we want to use Scripture as the final authority in our faith and practice. That means that we continually evaluate all of our items of faith and practice and chuck any that don't stand up to Scripture. Despite what you say, it's not "an established Scriptural stance." That puts a heavy burden on both sides to submit their views to Scripture. I would love a process that did this. So far, at two conventions, this type of process has been turned down. What has happened is that at two Conventions, those holding the complementarian view have failed to expel those who are open to fellowship with those on both sides of the issue. Where should we go from here? I don't think the answer is to send nasty e-mails or to refuse to accept any vote that doesn't go their way. I'd love to do just what you said - to sit down as a Fellowship and wrestle through the issue. I don't understand why people are afraid to do this. (Actually, I do. One person said at Convention that if this happens, people will find out that the egalitarians aren't so bad after all.)
P.S. Did my brother really just call me seditious? Christmas dinner is going to be interesting this year! :)
Since you offered - I'll take a copy of the email. Thanks.
You commented on my site that people were defending this e-mail, and I had to run over and check it out. Sorry, you're getting a bad rap on this one. I've been having a one way conversation for about a week with the person who is heading up this charge, kick anyone out of the fellowship who doesn't agree with them personally, because theirs is not even the fellowship position as of yet. I can say this, in our one sided coversation (meaning discussion is not an option) I've been told several times that I should take my talk of loving one another elsewhere. For those of you who want grace and fairness to win out let me say this, I don't want to give anyone a bad name, and don't think I've done that, however I have to say, all of us (in the church) have experienced people who feel that because they think they have the corner on the truth they can treat anyone whatever way they feel like, even if it means bringing division to the body of Christ. I think it's time that we, in the body of Christ stop saying that's ok. Regardless what position I hold on any one topic or how strong I believe that position is, it doesn't give me the right to mistreat people. I wouldn't suggest passing on the e-mails because then it will be about judging someone - I think that's not profitable for us or for the Kingdom. Having said that - I want off too! Not off the fellowship necessarily - although somedays I do - but ultimately, I'm with you Darryl - I want off of these attitudes, and these arguments and people who think they are right, deciding that loving others doesn't apply to them. What was it Paul said, if I have all knowledge and know all mysteries but have not love, I am nothing!!! Strong words. Sorry for the huge post
I agree with your brother David, but I can tell you're narrow-minded on this one so I'll shut up.
Ed, I find your comments very disturbing - you accuse the writer of this letter of not loving others, despite the fact that he says he does. Besides calling him unloving towards others who disagree, you're basically calling him a liar. These are very serious accusations. You need to be more careful. I think there should be a re-vote next year. They butchered it this year. Unfortunately, this Dan Snur guy needs to resign from his position. I feel bad for him but not knowing your own motion isn't acceptable. Ideally the fringe members would see that they're no longer in line with the position statement and graciously leave. Doesn't mean we can't still love and support each other. I just want to comment on the following part of the letter: "In all denominations where egalitarians were initially tolerated, and in the minority, they eventually gained the upper hand. They then rejected any who disagreed with them." This is SO TRUE. Complementarians are NOT tolerated today in the BCOQ. I once asked an ordination candidate to defend from scripture her elgibility as female to be ordained. I was immediately told that my question was out of order and was heavily booed!
I was hoping we wouldn't re-argue the gender issue, although I admit to dangling it right in front of everyone. My post isn't on the gender issue but the politics. No matter what you think on the issue, the e-mail was disturbing and had a bad tone. As for voting every year until you get your way or the process is perfect, knock yourself out, but I won't be there. Just posted on what I think is a better way. I wish I believed it could happen.
Jacob, I'm sorry you saw my comments as alluding to that, that was not my intention. My point wasn't to bad mouth someone, or anything of the sort. I see how that could come accross, I apologize. Having said that, you're using one e-mail to judge the situation as opposed to people who are dealing with it day in day out, for several years, and receiving e-mails (not just from one person), that ultimately communicate every time Christians disagree it's ok to divide, and worst, treat those you disagree however you want. I'm sorry Jacob, you want to defend that, you're free to do it, but I just don't see how that enhances the Kingdom or how it builds up the body, or how it proclaims "Good News". I don't want to make this about one person, that's just plain wrong, I apologize if I contributed to that - but don't miss the point - even if I'm right (about any issue), that doesn't give me the right to treat, with disdain, my brothers and sisters or anyone else, and if I do, I am displaying an attitude that warns us about strongly. In terms of the actual issue, yes the leadership botched it up, but there's so much history that you're missing here. Last year the leadership also said that we would have some real talking and put together something to study this issue properly, a month later everyone received communication that we would be voting on the issue this year, without that studying and gettin together taking place. What Darryl, and I are saying is that the solution when the "Church" disagrees is not to throw stones, and it's got to be something other than dividing. We've been doing that for over 50 years, and it doesn't work! Don't miss this, we're not against the people who don't stand where we do, on the contrary, we respect their opinion, having been there for so long ourselves. But can't we seek a better solution together. What we've heard is, no we can't. We don't want to discuss things, we want our opinion to be put in stone so we can make sure that people who don't agree don't infiltrate our ranks. I don't think I'm overstating the position. Alright, I'll stop, again, I don't want to make this personal, it's not fair, and it's not right. Having said all this, I think Darryl's post 'disagreeing intelligently' restates what he, and I believe is the real issue. peace
I think the guy who sent the email has a point (not saying whether or not I agree with his point). He has a valid concern. What I hear you saying, Darryl, is not that he isn't entitled to his views, opinions, and interpretations, but that he should have spoken/written his concerns in a different way. The problem is not so much with the content of his message, but the delivery.
Glad you saw what I was getting at. Seems like your better solution would be allow individual churches to do what they want which is essentially what the other side doesn't want (being yoked with churches who practice female leadership). I don't see the middle ground possibility. I'm all for discussing the issue (for a reasonable period of time). However, generally people don't change sides through discussion/debate, although sometimes they do. I don't see "dividing" as a big evil but more of an efficiency thing (it's not really dividing because you'd still be friends, love each other and part of the Universal church). Hey, if you guys left and joined the BCOQ, Alliance or some other group the Fellowship wouldn't be wasting all this time dealing with this issue and could in thoery move on to bigger and better things for the kingdom. Take Care Ed. Good chat.
And yet, there was a Jerusalem Council where Peter questioned Paul for extending grace to people who hadn't previously been considered. Paul had to convince Peter (and the rest of the fellowship) that it was time to change. Sometimes, you just need to leave. Other times, you need to be the person who keeps stirring up the dust.