“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1
Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)
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. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)
How do we reconcile our biblical rights and our freedoms as human beings under the sovereignty of God? Do we have the right to act in any way we choose? Or, do we have the freedom to choose to act as we wish. Being free to do something does not mean a particular way of acting is a right.
In Galatians 5, Paul spoke at length about the freedom of believers. Paul began his comments with this statement: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” With that declaration and those following, Paul established clearly the tension between being free to decide and act, and acting on the basis of one’s right to act.
Paul also said, “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” At that point, Paul moved from his discussion of the inefficacy of law-observance to other, more potentially dangerous ways of acting, based on the desires of the flesh. In 5.19-21, Paul listed an array of fleshly ways of acting, which were opposed to the way of the Spirit. What he wanted to make clear was how these sinful deeds were unlawful. No believer has the right to act in disobedience, yet, a believer is free to act according to the desires of the flesh (5.1, 13). Following that list of behaviors, Paul outlined the Fruit of the Spirit, the character qualities and attendant behaviors the Spirit produces in the life of an obedient believer.
Following the listing of the Fruit of the Spirit, Paul made a curious statement. “Against such things there is no law.” Thus, we can conclude, the Fruit of the Spirit are the biblical rights of believers. When God made laws against some things, he was saying, in effect, his people have no right to act in unlawful ways. Yet, Scripture is clear; on many occasions in the biblical record, and into the current era, believers have exercised their freedom to do what God has outlawed. To be free to disobey does not mean one has the right to be disobedient.
Some free acts we take are of less consequence than others. For instance, Baptist, in their freedom, have chosen to observe the Lord’s Supper in a manner inconsistent with the biblical model. We do not use one cup of wine and one loaf of bread. We have chosen to use grape juice (for social, not biblical reasons) and have platters of little crackers. We maintain the meaning of the “meal,” but we do not observe the biblical form. Jesus and the Disciples used one cup of wine and one loaf of bread in the original supper. Do we have the right to ignore the biblical model? Or, are we acting in freedom? We have chosen freedom.
The same principle applies to a church in its calling of a woman as pastor. Does a church have the “right” to ask a woman to serve as its pastor? The overwhelming evidence of Scripture says no. Does a church have the freedom to make such a decisions? Obviously, yes. When a Baptist church elects, in freedom, to call a woman as pastor, is that congregation acting in a way consistent with long-held Baptist beliefs and doctrine? Obviously, no. Should a church, having made that decision, accept the consequences of its decision? Yes, even when the cost is the loss of fellowship with other Baptist churches and bodies.
To act in freedom does not mean one is being sinful or disobedient. While the Bible seems to be clear about women serving as pastors, some have found what they believe is the authority to act in a particular manner. Flat Creek Baptist Church exercised its freedom to call a woman as pastor; one cannot say with certainty or with biblical authority that congregation had the freedom to act as it did. Was Surry Association correct in the actions it took against Flat Creek church? Yes it was. Surry Association upheld the traditional role and responsibility of a general body of Baptists: it called for doctrinal accountability and acted to propagate Baptist teachings, and sought to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches in its association.
No comments:
Post a Comment