Mike and Aimee - It's not clear to me where you stand regarding other denominations where ordaining women to office has never been allowable (e.g., PCA, OPC). I hear you saying that the mad rush in the SBC to end calling women "pastors" in any sense marks a significant change (i.e., to be conservative rather than orthodox). But what about denominations (or individual churches in denominations) where ordination of women is off the table, but encouraging the use of ministry gifts by women is encouraged? For me personally, I'm not fighting to see women ordained in the PCA, but I do want to see them exercise their gifts outside of pulpit ministry (e.g., women worship directors, youth directors, reading up front, particular teaching situations, etc.). This stems from my personal conviction about how the Bible speaks about the role distinctions between men and women in church leadership and corporate public worship. I've read Mike's great little book "Bourgeois Babes..." and listened to Aimee's "Recovering..." audio lectures, but I find that I draw the line in a different place. Does that automatically make me complicit in your eyes with the "theobro" abusers that are out there loud and proud? I appreciate your continued engagement on the topic especially in light of what you've suffered!
Great conversation. I do hope on your next one you two can discuss further the dialogue you two are having on egalitarians in complementarian churches.
Regarding the So. Baptist going in an even more strict complementarian direction, here is what the complementarian voice Denny Burk wrote yesterday on his blog: "Compromise always involves moving to the left, never to the right. To use a football metaphor, the difference between some moderates and progressives is that the progressive wants to move the ball into the endzone in a single play. The moderate is content to run numerous 5-yard plays. Both are headed toward the same endzone, and given enough time the moderates will land in the same place as the progressives. Conservatives need to beware of compromises that sound "moderate" but that in reality are slowly backing them into their own endzone. Lesson: Some wish for Southern Baptists to create governing structures to create space for churches that have women serving as pastors. They believe this to be a moderate/non-extreme position because they only mean to include churches that have female pastors serving in associate roles. What they don't seem to realize is that once the SBC accepts the theological principle that women can serve as pastors, there would be no grounds for saying they cannot serve as senior pastors. The one will inevitably lead to the other. In other words, today's "moderate" position eventually leads to the same place the progressives want to go, albeit a little bit slower. And in any case, the moderate position already falls short of what we believe the Bible says about the office of pastor."
I know this isn't your larger point, but in reading your comment there is a flaw that Denny Burk makes in saying that compromise always involves moving left and never involves moving right. You can compromise the gospel (which is what I assume is the substance of the compromise is about) both by going too far left and by going too far right. Otherwise, why did Jesus castigate the Pharisees along with the Saduccees?
Mike and Aimee - It's not clear to me where you stand regarding other denominations where ordaining women to office has never been allowable (e.g., PCA, OPC). I hear you saying that the mad rush in the SBC to end calling women "pastors" in any sense marks a significant change (i.e., to be conservative rather than orthodox). But what about denominations (or individual churches in denominations) where ordination of women is off the table, but encouraging the use of ministry gifts by women is encouraged? For me personally, I'm not fighting to see women ordained in the PCA, but I do want to see them exercise their gifts outside of pulpit ministry (e.g., women worship directors, youth directors, reading up front, particular teaching situations, etc.). This stems from my personal conviction about how the Bible speaks about the role distinctions between men and women in church leadership and corporate public worship. I've read Mike's great little book "Bourgeois Babes..." and listened to Aimee's "Recovering..." audio lectures, but I find that I draw the line in a different place. Does that automatically make me complicit in your eyes with the "theobro" abusers that are out there loud and proud? I appreciate your continued engagement on the topic especially in light of what you've suffered!
Great conversation. I do hope on your next one you two can discuss further the dialogue you two are having on egalitarians in complementarian churches.
Regarding the So. Baptist going in an even more strict complementarian direction, here is what the complementarian voice Denny Burk wrote yesterday on his blog: "Compromise always involves moving to the left, never to the right. To use a football metaphor, the difference between some moderates and progressives is that the progressive wants to move the ball into the endzone in a single play. The moderate is content to run numerous 5-yard plays. Both are headed toward the same endzone, and given enough time the moderates will land in the same place as the progressives. Conservatives need to beware of compromises that sound "moderate" but that in reality are slowly backing them into their own endzone. Lesson: Some wish for Southern Baptists to create governing structures to create space for churches that have women serving as pastors. They believe this to be a moderate/non-extreme position because they only mean to include churches that have female pastors serving in associate roles. What they don't seem to realize is that once the SBC accepts the theological principle that women can serve as pastors, there would be no grounds for saying they cannot serve as senior pastors. The one will inevitably lead to the other. In other words, today's "moderate" position eventually leads to the same place the progressives want to go, albeit a little bit slower. And in any case, the moderate position already falls short of what we believe the Bible says about the office of pastor."
I know this isn't your larger point, but in reading your comment there is a flaw that Denny Burk makes in saying that compromise always involves moving left and never involves moving right. You can compromise the gospel (which is what I assume is the substance of the compromise is about) both by going too far left and by going too far right. Otherwise, why did Jesus castigate the Pharisees along with the Saduccees?
Agreed! The so called 'slippery slope' slides both ways off a quite large plateau of belief.