Two SBC Leaders Who Changed their Opinion on Women in Pastoral Ministry
The SBC Controversy was a complicated, intra-denominational melee that involved (depending upon one's perspective) questions of theology, practice, politics, career-making and maintenance of the convention's status quo. Though most Southern Baptists who were active in the Controversy eventually identified with one of two major politico-theological parties, many people identified with more than one "camp" at various times during the 1980's and 1990's. I know many men who were once theological progressives who are now committed conservatives. I also know a few theological conservatives who ultimately chose to identify with the moderate/liberal wing of the denomination. Some individuals hide from their past, opting to ignore the fact they used to be more conservative or liberal than they are now. Others are willing to admit when they change their minds on certain crucial theological issues.
In his SBC blog today, Dr. Albert Mohler discusses SBC president Frank Page's evolving views on women in ministry. Dr. Page once believed that the Bible allowed for women to serve as senior pastors, even defending the practice in his 1980 doctoral dissertation. But then he changed his mind. Dr. Page, like almost all conservative Southern Baptists, now believes that the Bible affirms women in many types of ministry but the office of pastor is reserved for men alone.
After describing Dr. Page's change of heart and raising some important questions about the extent of the convention president's present convictions, Dr. Mohler candidly admits that he too once advocated women serving as senior pastors. He even admits that he was publicly involved in the moderate backlash against the 1984 convention resolution arguing against female pastoral leadership. Dr. Mohler unequivocally states that his position in the early-1980's was biblically incorrect, and he shares how he came to the complimentarian convictions he now believes and teaches.
Dr. Mohler's post is especially noteworthy because many moderates continue to claim that he is a "closet moderate" who "switched sides" so he could be president of Southern Seminary. I have personally heard this charge repeated by a number of moderate historians in both public settings and private conversation. But Dr. Mohler is not hiding from his past theological and/or political beliefs; rather, he admits his convictions have changed and that his current opinion better comports with what Scripture teaches on gender roles and pastoral leadership. In other words, Dr. Mohler has enough integrity to admit he was wrong.
Praise God for leaders like Drs. Mohler and Page who believe the Bible enough to conform their convictions to the Word, even when that means altering their beliefs on a controversial issue. And praise God for two men who have enough integrity to admit they were wrong.Â
 Â
 Â
"Praise God for leaders like Drs. Mohler and Page who believe the Bible enough to conform their convictions to the Word…"
This strikes me as a very interesting statement, theologically speaking. It implies that "believing the Bible" is something to be measured quantitatively (i.e. "Jim believes the Bible more than Joe does"). Would you say this is representative of the Southern Baptist understanding of the role of faith in one's engagement of Scripture?
One alternative to the view the statement implies is that faith in the word of God is something to be assessed qualitatively (i.e. "Jim believes the Bible differently than Joe does"). Though both views seem to have validity, it seems to me that the qualitative view is foundational and holds the most promise for preserving unity among Christ-followers.
Daniel, I appreciate your response to this blog. I do think that the point of Nathan's final statement is that he is grateful for convention leaders who are willing to change their beliefs when they see that different belief as clearly taught by scripture, rather than always holding to a belief because it is politically/theologically controversial. These leaders are not allowing the politics of the situation to determine their belief. They are allowing the Bible to determine their theology/politics. Nathan is more than capable for speaking for himself, but I do think that is what he is driving at. He never made a statement about someone believing the Bible MORE than someone else.
In my opinion, there is room to speak of people who believe the Bible not just differently, but better than other people. Now we may not know this side of heaven who has the right perspective on an issue, but one thing we do know is that both cannot be right. Therefore, someone does believe the Bible correctly on the pastoral ministry issue. We may disagree on which side is right, but we can agree that both sides cannot be.
Daniel, thanks for your comment. John's comment accurately reflects what I intended to communicate through this post. I do, however, want to offer one additional thought. While I was not thinking so much about the quantity one believes Scripture (valid though that is), I was thinking about the quality of one's belief in Scripture, particularly its total truthfulness and inability to err. While I understand that many inerrantists as well as those who hold to a "high view of Scripture" (if such is understood as something less than inerrancy but something more than a classically liberal view of the Bible) may hold to an egalitarian view of gender roles, I believe it is inconsistent to do so. One must perform some mighty hermeneutical gymnastics to conclude that the Bible means anything besides what it clearly says in regards to females in pastoral ministry. So while John is right in his assessment of my post, full disclosure dictates that I do make clear that I think Drs. Mohler and Page changed their mind in large part due to their holding to a better (as in superior, more correct) view of Scripture than those who believe the Bible is not truthful.