Ethics Daily’s Bob Allen has posted a story concerning Frank Page’s position on Women in the ministry. Bob quotes the SBC President as stating that he affirms the BFM 2000′s stance that the office of pastor is limited to men according to Scripture.
He then spends the rest of the article quoting Page’s doctoral dissertation at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. The quotes affirm women in ministry for “any office in the church.” Page also affirms, in his dissertation, the ordination of women, under the understanding that ordination is recognition of the Holy Spirit’s calling on one’s life.
A few thoughts here:
This story will certainly confirm the suspicions those who believed the rumor that Frank was a “liberal” that circulated during his presidential candidacy.
I have known many, I am one, who were more “moderate” as students and became more “conservative” as I got older and studied the Word for themselves, under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. I’m not knocking Theological education. I am a firm believer in it and was pretty conservative in the day, but I am much more so as I took the tools developed in Seminary and grew in the Lord.
This story is not new to me. I had heard that “the machine” in Ft. Worth was digging through everything available on Dr. Page immediately after the election. Why not before? They really didn’t think they were in the minority. In truth, this was easy to get as dissertations are kept in the library as published works.
More on SWBTS’ involvement later.
This is a foolish and slippery slope on which these folks are now treading. Have you ever said anything you wished you could take back? Ever said anything that you now realize was youthful exuberance now tempered with wisdom and experience?
If those things are not to be taken into consideration, then I know of at least one Seminary President is about to face the same scrutiny. What is good for the goose…
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Big Daddy Weave
on Jul 19th, 2006
@ 7:44 pm:
I regret many of the words that have come out of my mouth. However, I do not have 190 pages worth of words to regret. Fortunately for Mohler, he didn’t write a book affirming women – just took out an ad in the Louisville newspaper.
But, why didn’t “the machine” release these juicy excerpts from Page’s book before Bob Allen? Or perhaps “the machine” is in cahoots with EthicsDaily! Conspiracy – LOL.
GeneMBridges
on Jul 19th, 2006
@ 8:17 pm:
It’s worth noting that he apparently called for an end to ordination as a potential option. If folks would read the early Baptist confessions, you’ll find a similar position in them, since ordination was associated with sacramentalism, so it’s not as if that is itself with historical warrant. Dr. Akin alludes to having similar thoughts as this about ordination in his article on polity in Perspectives on Church Government.
I’d further add that there are Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian churches in the OPC and PCA who have female deacons. One could hardly call churches affirming the WCF, LBCF2 or the LBCF1 “liberal.”
Of course, the real irony here is that most of the folks that would call that “liberal” also allow their deacons to “rule” in a de facto manner, which is considered by many of us to be an unbiblical form of church government. Alternatively, they use a form of church government that is closer to a corporate model, which is also objectionable for the same reason. That’s rather like those who would say that they would want a Free Will Baptist to be rebaptized because he rejects Sola Fide, using a hyper-Calvinist argument vs. Free Willism, while then those same persons turn around and argue against Calvinism. Likewise those in the corporate model chastize those on the plural elder model, but they then let their pastors function as a plural elder board, the difference being they do not accord them all the same authority on the board, unlike those on the plural elder model. It’s really rather amusing.
Also, it’s well known Dr. Page’s church employs a female Minister of Adults. All you have to is go to their church website to find out. She does not appear to be “ordained,” as she does not have the title “Rev.” before her name. She also seems to do mostly womens and senior adult ministry from what I gather. Those that wish to criticize Dr. Page will also find her email address, and I am sure she would be willing to answer any questions those critics might have. I wonder if any have had the courage to simply ask.
Kevin Bussey
on Jul 19th, 2006
@ 8:24 pm:
Yeah,
This got my blood going too! Hypocrisy!
CB Scott
on Jul 19th, 2006
@ 8:46 pm:
Art,
This just proves that which we were exposing about some in power before Greensboro to be true.
Many knew that this tactic might be used, but were hoping that it would be beneath even those that are responsible for it. This was what I was referencing in my last post.
San Antonio, San Antonio, we must go to San Antonio.
cb
Perry McCall
on Jul 19th, 2006
@ 9:22 pm:
BDW, refers to Mohler. He has an excellent response to this on his new blog conventional Thinking. He basicly gives a testimony on how many who were doin doctoral work during that era feeel into that trap because the standard academic position was to affirm Women ordination. Obviously he changed his position. He even suggests that Dr. Page could also write of his process of changing his position.
GeneMBridges
on Jul 19th, 2006
@ 10:03 pm:
I think that is an excellent idea. We have lots of “Drs.” in the Convention, and so few of them do anything “academic” with their degrees. He should write such a paper and present it. Augustine had his Recantations, and it’s the hallmark of integrity to admit any changes in doctrine and practice one has made over time, regardless of what they are.
tim rogers
on Jul 20th, 2006
@ 6:01 am:
Brother Art,
I too have said and even preached things that I later had to go back and say I was wrong. I agree with Gene Bridges that it would be very helpful for Dr. Page to present a paper on such a change.
How is your move? Have you finished unpacking. You are my first comment post as I have just gotten back online.
Wade Burleson
on Jul 20th, 2006
@ 10:52 am:
Gene Bridges comment is brilliant.
Adam
on Jul 20th, 2006
@ 1:49 pm:
This just goes to show that AL Mohler and Frank Page are not above the politics of the SBC. As Perry said, many were doing it back then. They went along with the then influencial crowd. Now they’ve changed to the present influencial crowd. That’s a good definition of playing politics in my book.
That’s cool though. I’m glad to see them on the right track. Too bad it takes someone bringing this out for these guys to address it. I don’t know what to think – the big bad establishment for digging this out, or for Mohler and Page playing cover up??
art rogers
on Jul 20th, 2006
@ 2:57 pm:
BDW,
Interesting that you find this kind of politics humorous.
Gene,
As Wade said, great observations.
Kevin,
As always, we are on the same side.
CB,
I, too, hoped that they would see the foolishness of this tactic, but old habits die hard, I suppose. I sure hope some of their old tactics don’t get used against them by their former disciples.
Perry,
Thanks for the comment.
You can find Dr. Mohler’s discussion on one of his sites: Conventional Thinking [link].
Tim,
Not unpacked, but all in the house.
Wade,
Cat got your tongue? That may be the least you have ever said about anything – verbally or in print. ;)
Adam,
I am somewhat cynical about certain folks in the SBC right now, but it kind of took me off guard that you applied it this way. I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt to all – even if I don’t like what they are doing. Of course, when they conflict with themselves, I often highlight it.
This, though, seems to me to be growing up. Probably because I, myself, have gone through a similar process.
Have you?
Adam
on Jul 20th, 2006
@ 4:16 pm:
Sure, when I was 20 or 21. But someone working on their Ph.D can hardly be considered young and immature.
I knew about Dr. Mohler’s work on this issue along time ago before all this came out. I mentioned it to a few people, with no one believing me without seeing the evidence for themselves. Of course I don’t have newspaper articles written by Mohler filed away for sinister purposes.
Look, this convention is so filled with politics its sickening at times. I find it interesting that most people are so quick to point fingers at Patterson, while ignoring people like Mohler. He is steeped in it as much as any. But it appears to me that people want to judge him by a different standard than all the others. Same now with Page. With all due respect, As I read your blog I caouldn’t help but interpret it as saying, “Page (and Mohler) is our guy and we’re going to defend him at all costs.” This is a different approach to what I felt was your attitude concerning Ronnie Floyd and the local stadium incident. Here you give Page the benefit of the doubt, while Floyd it appeared you didn’t.
This whole politics thing is messy. Unfortunately it didn’t end with this year’s convention.
D.R.
on Jul 20th, 2006
@ 6:00 pm:
Adam,
I think your assumption that Dr. Mohler’s liberal ways in the 1980′s is hidden is false. As a resident of Louisville, KY and regular troller of the Seminary, I can assure you that this is common knowledge, discussed often, and commented on frequently in classes. Dr. Tom Nettles, for instance, talks in length in some of his classes about the spiritual journey of Southern Seminary and Al Mohler and actually is very good at explaining what really happened and what is really gossip and hearsay.
There is no, nor was there ever, any cover up regarding Al Mohler’s previous convictions. If there was, then maybe someone should tell the Admissions counselors at Southern to quit telling potential students about it when they take them on tours of the campus.
As for Frank Page, he doesn’t strike me as one to go around talking about his theological journey. I don’t think this is so much of a cover up as it is simply a non-issue. I don’t go around telling everyone that I used to be a Hal Lindsay fan back in the day . . . oops, cat’s out the bag now. Gotta go cover that one up…
Big Daddy Weave
on Jul 20th, 2006
@ 6:12 pm:
Yes, these Conspiracy Theories being floated around by SBC bloggers are “Laugh Out Loud” funny.
To think that Robert Parham (of all people) would conspire with Southern Baptist Fundamentalists is absurd. Do you know Robert Parham? How long have you been reading EthicsDaily.com? What would be Parham’s motivation to work with the “Machine” (which ran Parham out of the CLC)?
art rogers
on Jul 20th, 2006
@ 9:29 pm:
Adam,
If you read me placing Mohler and Page together, then you misread me. Reread the last paragraph.
I was saying that they can’t apply different standards on the exact same issue. If they accept Dr. Mohler’s current position, then they must also accept Dr. Page’s. They can’t have it both ways.
That puts those two on different sides of the fence of legitimacy among conservatives.
Also, the stadium issue is different. Flipping a position on the stadium weeks after the resolution on alcohol is not the same thing as flipping a position on women in the ministry over twenty years. There seems to be a lot more gravitas on the one more than the other.
As to the issue of SWBTS involvement, I know two things.
1. This exact story was confirmed to me weeks ago, originating from SWBTS employees.
2. Though Bob Allen and the folks at Ethics Daily, or ABP for that matter, would not willingly work with “the machine,” to assume that they could not be leaked information that served a mutual interest is myopic.
It is my perception that all conservatives are painted with the “fundamentalist” brush and anything that rattles our cage suits most moderates. BDW is a great example of that.
Bart Barber
on Jul 21st, 2006
@ 5:35 pm:
The sole purpose of a dissertation is for people to read it and react to it. SWBTS didn’t plant this story, but they should have. It is the seminary’s job to encourage people to read the seminary’s dissertations. So, to whoever “leaked” (how do you “leak” a document that has been in the public domain for nearly thirty years?) the dissertation: BRAVO!
Also, bravo to Frank Page for clarifying that he no longer believes what he wrote in his dissertation. I’m glad to see Dr. Mohler encouraging Page to publish more details. I’ve posted the same sentiments, and I belive it to be essential. Did Mohler steal that idea from me? (Yeah….right!)
Rzrbk
on Jul 22nd, 2006
@ 11:24 am:
I am still interested in how some refer to any one with a different view of scripture as a liberal. James Dobson believes it is all right for a women to serve as a pastor. Does that make him a liberal. Many in the Pentacostal tradition have women pastors. Are the all liberals. They have a different interpretation of scripture but they still believe the scripture is true. Capital Hill Baptist church has allowed to have more trustee appointees than any church I know by the conservative resurgence folks. They have women deacons. In the beginning of the resurgence Pressler and Pinckney and others listed that as the mark of a liberal church. What has changed?
art rogers
on Jul 22nd, 2006
@ 2:26 pm:
Ron,
As to the “liberal” question, I am not really the best to represent the views of the ones about whom you are asking the question. I believe the answer would be, “yes” they would consider all of them to be liberals.
Capitol Hill gets a pass from them because their deacons serve the Biblical role – ministers to those in need. Their elders are the ones in authority within the church and they do not have women elders.
Clear as mud?