The Bible and Women in Ministry

Review of A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership (ebook).

Stone, Meredith J. A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership, Waco, TX: Baptist Women in Ministry, 2023.

A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership is a brief 21-page booklet provided by the Baptist Women in Ministry organization, written by the organization’s executive director. Meredith J. Stone has a PhD from Brite Divinity School (TCU), is Executive Director of Baptist Women in Ministry (organized 1983 as Women in Ministry, SBC), and is author of Empire and Gender in LXX Esther (2018).

The book is an easy read to provide an overview of the approach taken by some Baptist women who promote full access for women in Christian and church ministry. The author seeks to address questions of women in church ministry, leadership roles, ordination, etc. She acknowledges, “These questions have been the source of conflict for decades, and the heart of the matter is how we interpret biblical passages related to women’s roles and leadership” (p. 1).

The booklet starts with an unlabeled “Introduction,” followed by eight sections: Women in the Bible (3-4); Women and Creation (5-7); Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament (8); Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament (9-10); Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church (11-13); Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations (14-15); Conclusion (16-17); and Discussion Guide (18-21).

Stone initially inserts a misguided application of the priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church. This may appeal to unthinking Baptists, but lays a shifting foundation for the work. Just because some Baptists interpret the scripture on their own (which they are free to do), is no guarantee that the interpretation and resulting practice is correct. Just because a Baptist Church is free to govern itself and make its own decisions apart from the influence of any other church does not mean she should make decisions contrary to the word God. The priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church only function properly in submission to God and his revealed word. In this introduction, Stone signals early on that the authority of many biblical passages (at the least the ones that challenge “women in ministry”) will be dismissed on cultural and literary grounds (p. 2). These passages will be painted as complicated matters of interpretation which have been unshackled by “women in ministry” in recent years.

Women in the Bible. In this section Stone highlights certain women in the Bible that seem to fit her agenda – Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Mary, Anna, Lydia, Priscilla, Philip’s daughters – noting, “While some women in the Bible exist in submissive roles to men, other women have authority and are prominent leaders” (p. 3). While all these women have an important place in the Bible, the author primarily throws their names out and hopes the reader will come down on her side – rather than, for example, dealing with why none of the prominent women in the New Testament are ordained officers in the church.[i]

Women and creation. Without attacking the creation account directly, Stone delivers a dose of doubt by calling Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 two different creation accounts – rather than clearly affirming the second is giving the details of the same creation account.[ii]  She renders Adam amorphous by claiming a better translation of “man” in Genesis 2:4-25 is “person.”[iii]  A silly illustration of the animals created before the woman is made – trying to side line any discussion of the order of creation of Adam and Eve as ridiculous. That Eve was created to be a helper (Genesis 2:20) is dismissed because the Hebrew word is also used in reference to God (pp. 5-6). 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is pitted against Romans 5:12-19 without resolution, beyond in her own mind simply impeaching 1 Timothy 2 (p. 6). Genesis 3:16 becomes merely “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive” (p. 6).[iv] 

Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament. Galatians 3:28 is not exegeted for meaning, but simply given as a prooftext of equality of ministry (p. 8). 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 and 11:4 provides cover for women praying and prophesying, while the head covering is lifted as merely a respectful temporary item of the cultural context. Stone grabs on to a controversial passage that even liberals dispute the meaning of, that Paul supposedly “calls” Junia an apostle, so that supports the position of the author. Meanwhile, almost no one actually thinks Junia was an apostle.[i] Notably, when Jesus chose the twelve, he did not appoint any women.

Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament. Stone mentions Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:22; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1-6. The teaching of these texts may be set aside since they are in the epistle genre (p. 9) – a communication between two parties which a third party will not understand. This denies the perspicuity of most of the New Testament. Yet oddly, a third party like Stone is able to figure out that it does not mean anything in our culture today. This was only for particular wives in particular congregations in this particular time. The author writes, “A decision must be made as to how to interpret the passages in light of each other” (p. 10). However, no real decision is made other than that no interpretation is needed for the passages since they should not have to obey them in modern times.[v]

Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church. Often Stone uses a “double down” technique. First, the instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 for women to be silent are contextual and not universally applicable (p. 11). Further! verse 36 should be considered a refutation of the command in verses 34-35, making “you” mean “you male Corinthians.” So, it means that only women in this very specific context at this time in Corinth were to remain silent, but wait … it actually means Paul was not telling them to be silent! The author plans to have her cake and eat it too. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the author focuses on “assume authority” (αὐθεντέω) as a hapax – a word used only once in the New Testament. She thinks it can only mean inappropriate power, and just in case, also limits it to a particular congregation (pp. 12-13). To be carefully complete, Stone rejects other matters in the context as irrelevant in “modern practice in worship” (p. 13). For a general principle, the author extracts that it means they were to act “in a way that is appropriate to one’s culture” (p. 13).[vi] To throw in the kitchen sink, Stone mentions that verse 15 is not consistent with salvation by grace through faith (making this a troublesome passage, without offering any explanation of it beyond simply using it to bolster her case for women in ministry). She feigns disbelief that such a passage exists, since women having children is not the cause or means of salvation.

Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations. A careful observer should notice a plan of action in A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. Stone accepts any “favorable” mentions of women in the Bible as prescriptive – promoting the idea that women should be in leadership. Stone rejects any “unfavorable” mentions of women in the Bible as descriptive – literary, cultural, and not teaching anything concerning women in leadership. It is “shocking” how it all works out in a way that is always consistent with what she is promoting! Nevertheless, we should again be reminded that the exceptions prove the rule. 

Conclusion. The conclusion reminds the reader that the book is intended to offer a perspective so “more women will be able to embrace and embody their callings…” (p. 16). In other words, the book did not set out to see what were the most valid interpretations of various passages of scripture, but to interpret them in way to fulfill the book’s purpose. For example, Stone highlights Joel 2:18-32 and Acts 2:14-18 and we are supposed to just accept it as meaning women should be in leadership roles in the church without any dealing with the prophecy, fulfillment, and its context. Apparently only the context should be noted when it can be used to nullify a command. One simple thing to note about Acts 2:14-18 is that Peter believed everything he preached on this day of Pentecost, including what he referred to from the prophet Joel. Yet he and none of the other apostles ever interpreted that as a reason to engage in the ordination of women.

Discussion Guide. The book concludes with a “Discussion Guide” with discussion questions. These are divided into general discussion questions, followed by specific questions related to each section of the book. The questions are more oriented toward feelings – “what does this text mean to you” than facts – “what does this text actually say.”

This book can be “recommended” as a good example of the application of a particular hermeneutic (the theory and methodology of the interpretation of biblical texts) that will support and promote the leadership of women in church ministry.[vii] Of this type of hermeneutic, former feminist Rosaria Butterfield states:

“Ordaining women is the gateway to gay theology. There is no denomination that ordains women that will not eventually ordain homosexuals. I’m not a prophet. I don’t need to be. You just have to read your church history. The reason it is the gateway is that it is the same hermeneutic – different Bible passages, but the same hermeneutic – that is used to ordain women is used to ordain homosexuals.” (“How Parachurch Ministries have Failed to Stand against the LGBTQ Movement.” You can start listening about 32:00 for context, and the quote is at about 35:14 in the video.)

I didn’t find this book existing in print. The book seems somewhat obscure, in that if you do not know of BWIM and their website, you probably won’t be aware of it. I only discovered it because someone promoting ordination of women and rebuking me for citing Rosaria Butterfield mentioned the BWIM site as providing valuable information about the calling of God on women’s lives to allay my ignorance on the subject. And thus, I came to give this review of the booklet.

As an example of what to not believe, I can point readers to A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. A cruise around the Baptist Women in Ministry site will demonstrate Rosaria Butterfield’s observation about hermeneutics and the ordination of women. BWIM does not just support women in ministry, but “is committed to supporting and advocating for any individual who identifies as a woman…to celebrating and supporting LGBTQ+ women and open and affirming congregations,” as well as “non-binary persons.” The book displays interpreting scripture in a way that fits the changing moods of society while rejecting the rather consistent historical interpretation of the churches for 2000 years. If the hermeneutic of this book is applied to homosexuality, it brings about the same approving results for ministry and ordination of homosexuals as it does for women.

As a valid exposition of biblical truth, A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership gets “0” stars, and no recommendation. It is not Baptist. It is not biblical.

---

[i] Stone will later (p. 8), claim that Paul calls Junia an apostle (and inferring that Junia is a woman, this part probably correctly). This hangs a lot on a passage over which there is much dispute. Paul says, “Andronicus and Junia…are of note among the apostles,” not that they are apostles (though some people do receive it with that meaning).
[ii] Most (if not all) of these “Baptist Women in Ministry” supporters exist in the plain of liberalism, since conservatism is inconsistent with their views.
[iii] Most translators disagree, even moderate to liberal ones. For example, of the nearly 60 translations on Bible Gateway, only the idiosyncratic Complete Jewish Bible, the work of a single translator, David H. Stern, uses person in Genesis 2:8 –while all the rest use man.
[iv] One consistent theme is that commands that are inconsistent with the views of Baptist Women in Ministry are always the ones that are “descriptive.”
[v] Stone also used the proximity of the instructions to women to the instructions to servants and masters to further diminish the authority of the instructions (p. 10). She does not bother to explain that 1 Peter 3 has no such context and still exhorts wives to be subject to their husbands.
[vi] An uncomfortable conclusion of accepting this principle is that, at some point, women in the churches in the United States ditched not only the text, but the simpler principle as well, by starting to break out of the cultural norms that we had in place. As far as biblical church order, ordained ministers have a calling and an office, but are not of greater importance than everyone else in the church. Men who are not preachers have their gifts. Women have their gifts. All are a part of the church body (cf. Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12). All have differing gifts for the edification of the body. “If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”
[vii] Some women in leadership have dubbed their biblical interpretations “her-meneutics” as opposed to “his-meneutics” – a focus on women’s interpretation of the Bible. “Her.meneutics” is the Christianity Today blog for women.

“First” Baptist Baptist Church

A little humor at the expense of Baptist church names: Underachieving Christian Settles for Third Baptist Church.

In theory, “First” Baptist should mean the first Baptist Church established in a place – to distinguish it from other churches that were organized later. In the 1800s in Texas, a Baptist Church in a town was often simply called the Baptist Church of [name of town]. When other churches were organized it seems that the trend developed from calling the Baptist Church of [name of town] to calling it the first Baptist Church of [name of town]. And then this developed into the name First Baptist Church. (I can’t speak for how this occurred in other places, but I would expect it to be much the same.) Nowadays, the name “First Baptist” seems to have a different sort of connotation.

This morphed historical practice creates some odd situations, when the “First” Baptist Church isn’t the first Baptist Church. I won’t mention names, but these are some actual situations in the area where I live.

I know of one church named “First Baptist Church” which is the oldest existing Baptist Church in that particular town, but it is not the first Baptist Church. The first Baptist Church organized in the town died out, ceased to exist, but I suppose “Oldest Baptist Church” is not a very appealing name for a church.

I know of two different churches in neighboring counties in which the “First Baptist Church” was organized later than another church in the town – meaning they certainly are not the “first” Baptist Church. Both of these cases are cases of historically white churches not recognizing (at least in their naming) historically black churches that are older, and evidently first.

I know of two churches in a place that both used “First” in their names. They existed because of a church split. The churches added modifiers after “First” to distinguish which “First Baptist” was which. Eventually, the older church (the one really first) died out, ceased to exist, and the other church dropped the modifier to simply be “First Baptist Church” – but it still is not the “first.”

We Baptists sometimes are quite odd ducks.

I am in a strait betwixt two

A political post that will likely be disliked by the majority of readers on either side. In Texas in November, we will make a choice for U. S. Senator, predicted to be either Ken Paxton or James Talarico.

Almost three years ago I wrote the following about Ken Paxton:

The Republican Party platform says, “We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization” (p. 29). For some members of the Republican party, this may only be a generic plank to show a reason for the opposition to the marriage of people of the same gender. It certainly is and should be that, but it is more than that. It affirms “God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior” – which Attorney General Ken Paxton has flaunted. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and we could forgive him for the sin of adultery. However, after this sin he multiplied sin upon sin. Attorney General Paxton lied to his wife, lied to his supporters, lied to Texas, continued to pursue the adultery he promised to put behind him, and used his position as Attorney General of the great State of Texas in his doing so! I do not and cannot trust liars.

Recently, I compiled the following about James Talarico:

As bad, and probably worse, is the religious ignorance—and deliberate misrepresentation—from an oleaginous seminarian aspiring to be a slick politician. James Talarico is a very liberal member of a very liberal PCUSA church in Austin, Texas. He does not accept the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible. The biblical positions he presents are biblical nonsense (though probably having wide appeal among those who like to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they like and don’t like). Talarico’s bizarre “biblical” claims include: God is nonbinary, there are six biological sexes, transgender men need abortion rights, Jesus was a feminist, Mary was a revolutionary and a poster child for “bodily autonomy” (demonically using the virgin birth to promote murdering babies), the teachings Jesus do not cover homosexuality or abortion, the Gospel of Thomas was “later omitted from the Bible,” and salvation is not only through Jesus Christ, but all faith traditions lead to salvation (though we Bible believers know Jesus said, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”).[i] James Talarico cloaks his political beliefs in spiritual rhetoric. The problem is that his spiritual rhetoric is of the worst kind, departing from two thousand years of general understanding about what is the orthodox teaching of the churches from Scripture. Over and over again, James Talarico’s views, judged by the Bible, are heretical! Summed up – like others he charges with being Christian nationalists, James Talarico also wants a “Christian nation” – just so long as it implements his version of “Christian.” It is a version of Christianity that many Bible-believing Christians will not recognize. I do not and cannot trust heretics. (And in this case, the religious heretics is also a liar, as can be seen in his attempts to rehabilitate his views for the statewide race.)

Paul said he was in a strait betwixt two – dying to be with Christ or living to serve for Christ. Literally, there were only two options. He would either live or die. However, in the race for the U. S. Senate in November, there actually are more than two options. In addition to Paxton and Talarico, the following people will apparently be on the ballot for U. S. Senator from Texas, November 3, 2026: Ted Brown (Libertarian), David B. Collins (Green Party), Joshua Cain, Ronald Evans, Camencia Ford, Jade Simmons, and Hans Truelson (Independents).

We have no reason to be in a strait betwixt two. There are choices, surely (possibly? hopefully?) at least one of whom would be more in line with Christian values and principles than immoral Paxton or ungodly Talarico. We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils, but rather can chose to vote for someone else. Until we grow a backbone, we will never change. I know the tired old line about only voting for either the Democrat or Republican, because one of them is bound to win. I hate the two-party control system, but that latter assessment is probably right. If so, is it not likely a sign that we are under God’s judgment, if he should raise up one of these two sorry rascals to represent us? Then again, regardless, maybe a rascal representing rascals is absolutely appropriate! Will we believe God, humble ourselves, and repent? The admonition to the people of Israel in 2 Chronicles 7:14 was not only to humble themselves, and pray, but also to seek God’s face, and turn from their wicked ways.

---

[i] I have documented all the statements by Talarico, in context, and will eventually get around to posting a fuller exposure of his heresies. If you want to see it sooner, let me know.

Baptists and Evangelicals

While, as you know, I am not Southern Baptist, I believe this comment below by Malcolm Yarnell is worthwhile for general instruction for all of us who are Baptists. Many Baptists seem to think they are just evangelicals, but there are reasonable reasons to understand that we actually are not.

“...Southern Baptists must never compromise those beliefs which have made us Baptists: specifically, the drive for a regenerate New Testament church membership, founded upon the biblical and historical doctrine of the divine–human covenant, evidenced at first in the ordinance of believers-only baptism by immersion, continually expressed in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, lovingly maintained by the practice of local church discipline, and fervently expanded by the expository proclamation of the Word of God. Southern Baptists will endeavour to speak these and other non-negotiable truths in love, inviting evangelicals inter alia to join us in becoming consistent with Scripture, not only theologically but ecclesiologically.”

“Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals? A Second Decadal Reassessment,” Malcolm Yarnell III, Ecclesiology 2.2 (2005) SAGE Publications, page 212

inter alia: (adverb) among other things.

The Royal Invitation

The song The Royal Invitation (391, The Sacred Harp, 2012 Cooper Edition) was first published in The Sacred Harp in 1907. The tune was written by Daniel James Givens. The author of the words, below, is unknown. Perhaps Givens wrote them, or found them elsewhere and arranged to use with this tune. The text presents what Givens called “The Royal Invitation” for sinners to come to Jesus.

The chorus is sung after each stanza.

1. Come, sinner, come, and help bear the cross,
Jesus has suffered the great loss;
He will redeem you from all your sin,
If you will come, He will take you in.

2. Jesus so sweetly bids you to come,
He will receive you to His home;
Come to the fold, why do you delay?
Come to the Saviour, O! come today.

Chorus:
Come, sinner, come, without delay,
He is the truth, the light and the way;
He has the pow’r to save from all sin,
If you will come, He will take you in.

If anyone is aware of the author or origin of these words before the 1907 Sacred Harp, please let me know. So far, I have not found them anywhere else. D. J. Givens wrote six songs that are included in The Sacred Harp, and is credited with writing the words to The Crucified Saviour (p. 84). So, perhaps he wrote these words also and the original typesetter simply failed to put his name on the hymn side.

Daniel James “Jim” Givens (November 11, 1879–April 23, 1957) was born in Henry County, Alabama, a son of John Anderson Givens and Minerva A. R. Melvin. He married Lenora S. “Nora” Wiggins (1879–1950), a niece of W. M. Cooper’s stepfather Hopewell Wiggins. They had at least three children: Willie, Jewell, and Mavis. Jim and Nora are buried at the Webb Cemetery in Webb, Houston County, Alabama. His song, The Lamb of Calvary 508, was removed in 1992. Givens was primarily working as a farmer living in Houston County, Alabama.

84 The Crucified Saviour 

391 The Royal Invitation

490 Canaan’s Peaceful Shore

491 Closer Walk With God

541 I’m Going Home to Die No More

572 We Will Sing With the Angels There

Baptist history on Ancestry

If you have an Ancestry subscription, are interested in Texas Baptist history, and especially if you are interested in the Anderson Baptist Church (formerly Antioch) of Grimes County, Texas, there are 29 pages of membership records here:

https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/62267/records/3289

There are some records of five other churches that follow alphabetically (some, unfortunately, not that well labeled).

Or for broader searches, see HERE.

What we lose

As an old dinosaur, perhaps, I am particularly pained and puzzled by the move away from Bibles as books to Bibles on screens, phones, and computers. Now to be clear, I am not against using these resources when they can be a help – but, like Dustin Benge (a younger person and also an educator), overall, I see the switch is a loss rather than a gain.

What we lose when the Bible is only on a screen:

1. You remember where the verse lives on the page and aids memorization.

2. The page shows you much more at once. You see the context, not just a few verses at once.

3. The page keeps your notes. Years from now they will still be there, in your own hand.

4. The page cannot distract you with a notification. It only asks to be read.

5. The page is something your children watch you open and they know it’s the Bible.

The screen gives much. The page gives more.

- Dustin Benge

Household baptisms, reprise

In total there are three clear statements referencing “household baptism” in the New Testament (Acts 16:15, 33-34; I Corinthians 1:16), as well as two that may be considered implied (Acts 10:47-48; 18:8). Pædobaptists assert that “household baptism” are proof of “infant baptism.”[1]  However, the second (infant baptism) does not logically follow the first (household baptism).[2] In addition to the logical fallacy, contextual statements in each biblical case provide evidence against rather than support for infant baptism. 

Rather than infant baptism, the Bible teaches believers’ baptism. The command, precept, and example of the New Testament is that belief – faith in the Lord Jesus Christ – must precede baptism (immersion in water).

Below is a chart showing these five biblical “household baptisms.”

---

[1] “…when the NT merely says that Lydia believed and she was baptized and her household, it is far more natural to assume her children were included.” Derek Carlsen, Faith and Courage, page 374. “Pædobaptist” is a theological term for those who baptize infants. Most are more properly “pædorantist,” that is, they sprinkle (ραντιζω) rather than baptize (immerse, βαπτιζω) infants.
[2] Pædobaptists must assume that all households always have infants, which is incorrect. Notice that Carlsen must assume (1) Lydia is married, (2) Lydia has children, (3) Lydia has young children for whom she must stand proxy, and (4) the household in this needed case must necessarily include parents and children.