Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Doctrine trims ranks of Baptist missionaries
Fort Worth Star Telegram ^ | 6/5/2003 | Jim Jones

Posted on 06/05/2003 6:34:10 AM PDT by sinkspur

Forty-three Southern Baptist missionaries lost their jobs in May because they refused to sign a controversial faith statement that opposes women pastors and says wives should "graciously submit" to the servant leadership of their husbands.

Susie and David Dixon, missionaries in Madrid, Spain, received notice on Susie Dixon's birthday that they had been fired, after 15 years of service.

"I felt like I was excommunicated from the denomination I had been nurtured in all my life," Susie Dixon said in a telephone interview from Madrid. "I've gone through the whole gamut of emotions -- grief and anger and denying this could really happen, to sadness that it could come to this."

Since January 2002, overseas missionaries have been pressured to affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement, and most of the more than 5,000 missionaries have done that. But this spring, all missionaries were told they must affirm the statement or lose their jobs.

The firing of 13 missionaries and the resignation or retirement of 30 others serving in places such as the Ivory Coast, Spain and Japan widens the split between moderates and conservatives in the nation's largest Protestant denomination.

"We grieve over this," said Jerry Rankin, president of the International Mission Board in Richmond, Va. "We regret losing any missionaries, but we must move on. Our focus now is not on those leaving but in giving nurture and care to those still in the field."

At least 77 missionaries have left in recent months because they reject the statement, the largest exodus of Southern Baptist employees since the moderates and conservatives began pulling apart more than 30 years ago.

Many are now looking for other ways to support their missionary work.

Moderate Baptists say conservatives have made what was meant to be a general profession of Baptist doctrine into a binding creed with specific prohibitions and a litmus test for employment. They say the statement is sexist and elevates the Bible over personal experience with Jesus.

Rankin said that affirming the faith statement shows accountability to the denomination and that missionaries have been required to affirm Baptist faith statements in the past.

The statement is not a creed because it is not imposed on individual Baptists or their churches, Rankin said.

Other Baptist employees, including professors at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, have also been fired or forced to resign because they disagreed with changes in the Baptist doctrinal document.

Susie Dixon, who turned 51 on May 7, said she started thinking about becoming a missionary when, as a teen-ager, she went on missions to Mexico with the First Baptist Church of Midland. She met her husband while they were attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth.

David Dixon, 54, who served eight years as pastor of Iglesia Bautista Central west of downtown Fort Worth in the 1980s, was academic dean and professor at the Spanish Baptist Seminary in Madrid. He said he and his wife chose to be fired, rather than resign, to show support for the thousands of other Southern Baptists who also oppose the new faith statement.

"Of course, it is disappointing and it hurts, but we knew our convention in the states was moving in this direction," David Dixon said. He and his wife, who taught at the Madrid seminary, hope to return to Spain and continue their work using other avenues of financial support.

Baptist missionaries in Japan have particularly objected to sections of the revised doctrinal statement relating to women because many Japanese Baptist churches are led by women pastors.

Two missionaries to Japan who were fired, Ron Barrow-Hankins and his wife, Lydia, an ordained minister, said in an e-mail that they could not affirm the faith statement because it denigrates the role of women.

They said the statement reflects "blatant sexual discrimination" and "rewrites the role of every missionary woman in the field. Its marriage and ministry restrictions spell a setback of generations for the liberating power of Christ in the lives of women."

The moderate-led Baptist General Convention of Texas has established a $1.3 million fund to offer up to a year's assistance to missionaries who have lost their jobs. So far, more than $500,000 for housing, medical help and other needs has been allocated to missionaries who have been fired or resigned, said Steve Seaberry, an administrator of the fund.

Moderates in other states have pledged to help, and individual churches are expected to support some of the missionaries who want to remain in the field. The Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas, for example, will allow the Dixons to stay in the church's missionary residence this summer when they return to the Metroplex.

"I think there will be a variety of responses to help these missionaries who had to leave," said Keith Parks, a moderate leader and former president of the Southern Baptist missionary agency. "Some institutions overseas have said they will assume financial responsibility to keep the missionaries."

Other displaced missionaries have found work with other church organizations.

Ron Gunter, a missionary who resigned, was formerly in charge of work in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova. He now represents the Baptist General Convention of Texas to churches in the Houston area.

Gunter, who served as pastor at the River Oaks Baptist Church in Fort Worth before becoming a missionary, also said that affirming the statement would be like accepting a creed.

"We Baptists have no creed but the Bible," he said.


TOPICS: Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: baptistchurch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 06/05/2003 6:34:11 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
What in the world is "moderate" about women pastors?

Looks like that same old definition: A moderate is somebody who doesn't oppose the radicals.
2 posted on 06/05/2003 7:22:55 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I don't know why they would want to prohibit woman pastors. As far as I know there is only one reference to the word "pastor" in the whole bible, and that is in Ephesians, and the duties are not defined. But we do know that there were female deacons quite early, see Romans 16:1 (some translations say "servant" but when footnoted it will show that the word for servant is otherwhere translated deacon.) Perhaps a Baptist can enlighten me.
3 posted on 06/05/2003 8:52:41 AM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
Not that I agree with them, but as a lifelong (until recently) SB, I know at least some of the source scripture for this rationale:
  1. 1 Timothy 2:12
    But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority
    over a man, but to remain quiet.
  2. 1 Timothy 3:2
    An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband
    of one wife
    , temperate, prudent, respectable,
    hospitable, able to teach...

"Overseer" is usually translated "Bishop", but the SBC applies these rules to pastors, presumably because there are no bishops in the hierarchy. 1 Tim. 3:12 is also interpreted in some SBC's as an injunction against divorced men holding church offices.

I have been continually puzzled by the rigorous application of these rules, but total indifference to other "church order" doctrines, such as head coverings. Some of the wildest hair-dos I've ever seen were sported by SB women during worship services. Also, women ARE allowed to teach other women and children, and are definately NOT encouraged to keep quiet. What's up with that?

4 posted on 06/05/2003 9:25:45 AM PDT by jboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jboot; Commander8; editor-surveyor; fortheDeclaration; Gal.5:1; Alamo-Girl; RnMomof7
FYI-ping

This whole issue is about 'Darwin Evolution' (Bible Relativism) verses 'Creationism' (Creator-Redeemer-God of Bible Absolutes)

BOTTOM LINE.........Adam was created FIRST,...then Eve taken/made from Adam's Rib!

Maranatha!

ROMANS 10:17

5 posted on 06/05/2003 10:18:02 AM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
SPOTREP
6 posted on 06/05/2003 10:29:24 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
***Forty-three Southern Baptist missionaries lost their jobs in May because they refused to sign a controversial faith statement that opposes women pastors and says wives should "graciously submit" to the servant leadership of their husbands.***

Good. They should resign.

That (BFM) is the doctrinal statement of the group that sends them. The changes were approved in an orderly way by the denomination.

What doctrine is not controversial? Only if it says nothing is it non-controversial. The deity of Christ is controversial in the highest order.

The liberals are just not use to conservative forces regaining ground. No tears from me.

-drstevej



7 posted on 06/05/2003 10:37:50 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maestro
Ok, I can accept that. But since we are taking an absolutist stand, what about women not speaking?

1 Tim. 2:12 does not merely state that women are subject to men and cannot be pastors, it says that they cannot speak at all during the assembly. Does your church have women in the choir? Are women teaching Sunday School? Do women ever give testimonies? If so, you are violating the letter of this rule.

8 posted on 06/05/2003 10:41:47 AM PDT by jboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
These people are no different than dissident Catholics who say it's not fair that they have to adhere to certain doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Simple solution: You don't like the doctrines of a certain sect or branch of a sect? Go find another one or start your own.
9 posted on 06/05/2003 10:47:31 AM PDT by Conservative til I die (They say anti-Catholicism is the thinking man's anti-Semitism; that's an insult to thinking men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
They say the statement is sexist and elevates the Bible over personal experience with Jesus.

Incredible. I for one am quite glad to elevate the Bible over my personal experience. And I am quite happy to elevate a creed composed by men much better than myself over my personal opinions, which have a tendency to change often.

10 posted on 06/05/2003 10:59:30 AM PDT by Cleburne (a sinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maestro
It is troubling to me whenever one tries to ignore, alter or overrule any part of the Word. It doesn't matter whether they do it because they find the Word inconvenient or offensive - or whether they value their own understanding or tradition equal or above God's will.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. - Mark 7:7

The Word comes first:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. - John 1:1-2

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14


11 posted on 06/05/2003 11:11:16 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; the-ironically-named-proverbs2
It is troubling to me whenever one tries to ignore, alter or overrule any part of the Word. It doesn't matter whether they do it because they find the Word inconvenient or offensive - or whether they value their own understanding or tradition equal or above God's will.

I agree whole-heartedly. The only question that I have is whether not allowing women to be pastors is verifiably biblical. Seems a shame to lose all those willling servants if it is an inaccurate interpretation of scripture.

12 posted on 06/05/2003 12:56:16 PM PDT by Is2C
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; drstevej
...They say the statement is sexist and elevates the Bible over personal experience with Jesus...

This one statement says it all. No Sola Scriptura for these people.

13 posted on 06/05/2003 1:39:48 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Athanasius contra mundum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
***Forty-three Southern Baptist missionaries lost their jobs in May because they refused to sign a controversial faith statement that opposes women pastors and says wives should "graciously submit" to the servant leadership of their husbands.***
Good. They should resign.
That (BFM) is the doctrinal statement of the group that sends them. The changes were approved in an orderly way by the denomination.
What doctrine is not controversial? Only if it says nothing is it non-controversial. The deity of Christ is controversial in the highest order.
The liberals are just not use to conservative forces regaining ground. No tears from me.

Me either Steve. The Bible makes no provision for women Pastors.

I think the SBC is well rid of them

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

14 posted on 06/05/2003 2:00:04 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Jerry_M
The sad thing is all the money that has gone to these liberals on the missions field in the past. Great to finally smoke them out!
15 posted on 06/05/2003 2:03:18 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Is2C
Thank you for your post and for your question! Here's what I found on first blush:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. - I Corinthians 14:34-35

Notably, that is limited to women speaking in the church environment - which I take to mean preaching and envangelizing. Women are obviously a standard bearer at home, in Sunday schools, Bible study and so forth.

We can also see by example, that women ought to praise God, which I take to mean choirs as well, and pray and fast:

And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she [was] a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served [God] with fastings and prayers night and day. - Luke 2:36-37

Notwithstanding that Paul calls it a "shame for a woman to speak in the church" it strikes more as a spiritual misdemeanor than a felony. Just my two cents on that one...

16 posted on 06/05/2003 2:09:03 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: maestro
This whole issue is about 'Darwin Evolution' (Bible Relativism) verses 'Creationism' (Creator-Redeemer-God of Bible Absolutes) BOTTOM LINE.........Adam was created FIRST,...then Eve taken/made from Adam's Rib!

Paul calls on a scripitual teaching to stake out his position, so we know it was not cultural.He harkened back to the order of creation as evidence it is God ordained.

  1Ti 2:11   Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

     1Ti 2:12   But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

     1Ti 2:13   For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

17 posted on 06/05/2003 2:10:29 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I've read an argument (one that I agree with) that Paul is actually talking to married women ("let them ask their husbands"), and not to women in general.
18 posted on 06/05/2003 2:18:48 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Athanasius contra mundum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Thank you for your post! Indeed, it could be read more narrowly.
19 posted on 06/05/2003 2:20:23 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson