Calling Out the SBC. Again.
Last week, Beth Moore had the audacity to speak out against the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Again.
Ahead of the convention, “The Rev. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said he plans to propose a constitutional amendment to clarify that no participating Southern Baptist church can allow women to serve as senior pastors or even have the word “pastor” in their staff title, or they will be disfellowshipped.” (MSN)
Moore’s response that “the SBC as an entity was more interested in protecting shepherds than the sheep entrusted to their care.” Ouch. She continued, “When protecting the pulpit from women becomes a far greater priority than protecting women (& children) from an abusive pulpit, something is wrong.” (Crosswalk) Double ouch.
Let’s be clear: her criticism is that the SBC protected male leaders and staff who abused women and sometimes children. In 2022, A 288-page report commissioned by the SBC found that “allegations of sexual abuse were ignored or covered up for nearly 20 years by senior members of the denomination’s Executive Committee.” (TGC)
She’s calling out an organization for not doing the right thing: protecting women from abusers, holding those abusers accountable, or confessing their sin of covering up this behavior.
Which is why we’re having a whole argument about whether or not women can preach. Here are some examples from social media:
My wife has impacted countless lives and has never once asked for or demanded a position, a title, or an office. Jesus wasn’t overly concerned about the titles. It’s called living out your faith.
Well, Donald, Beth Moore is not demanding a title, position, or office. Let’s stay with the argument: she’s calling out the SBC for covering up sexual abuse.
What if a woman has been called by God to preach and teach the Word. Is she supposed to tell Him that the SBC said she wasn’t permitted to. What would He say?
I would question who the calling was from, or whether it was a calling at all.
Is that the equivalent of “she’s crazy”? But, let me redirect you. The argument Moore is making is about the SBC not addressing sexual abuse among its own pastors.
We should all seek the bibles [sic] guidance with these questions. This time it says we each have our paths, both men and women, and one cannot usurp the other.
“Usurp the other”? Is that code for women usurping the power position of men or were you worried that a man might usurp a woman’s role in childcare on a Sunday morning? Do men have a secret desire to run VBS?
But again, that wasn’t Moore’s argument: Something is wrong if the SBC doesn’t stand up against abusers.
Edward Davis
because God won’t call women to preach in the first place! Please read the Bible and see what it says about this!
Well, Edward, I have some recommended reading for you to look at.* It’s written by people who have read – and studied – the Bible, put Paul’s writings into a context, and spent some time understanding Hebrew words.
But let’s get back to the argument. Beth Moore is arguing that the good men of the SBC should address abuse in the church. While they are spending their time making sure that women can’t preach, they STILL have not addressed 20 years of abuse of women (and sometimes children).
How hard is it to stay with the argument? But, I suspect there’s more going on here. Let’s see. A talented woman is calling out a bunch of men who completely fumbled the ball. So, let’s not talk about the fumble at all. Let’s pick a separate issue or spend our time attacking the messenger.
Is that about right? Glenn Auvil seems to agree.
If Almighty God calls you- you don’t need the permission of men…. First ungodly men attack anointed men sent by God. Then modern Pharisees attack and wound anointed women sent by God. The SBC is run by unqualified, incompetent folks - there are no apostles or prophets among them. All the foolish debating stops when a show of Almighty God’s power and authority is shown through the people He chooses- regardless of what parts they were born with.
Thank you for saying what a lot of us are thinking, Glenn. And as much as I agree with your post, still, I’m gonna have to redirect you to the argument at hand:
The SBC needs to protect women and children from predators and abusers.
The problem with total male leadership is that they can never understand the level of betrayal or the lifetime of damage an abused woman will carry, especially after the men protected the perpetrator and refused to believe the victim.
But, I’ve gotta say, if women had been in some of these leadership positions, they would have understood right away. Not only would the victims of the abusers have been listened to, but the male predators would have already been reported to the police.
* Recommended reading:
Tell Her Story by Nijay K. Gupta
Phoebe: Patron and Emissary by Joan Cecelia Campbell
From Genesis to Junia by Preston Sprinkle
The Making of Biblical Womanhood by Beth Allison
Free or paid subscribers encourage this work, and you’ll get the post delivered directly to your email.
Fun fact: In the early stages of the ELS (Evangelical Lutheran Synod), the bi-laws set forth stated that women weren't allowed to pastor, hold any office, vote, voice an opinion,or even teach Sunday school. Over time these rules were reconsidered (by the men), and eventually amended to allow women, at the very least, to teach Sunday school because they couldn't get enough men to volunteer for the task.
Speaking of "staying with the argument," isn't BM shifting the argument? Isn't the SBC vote over the role of women in pastoral ministry? BM is the one who made it about abuse.
To be clear, abuse is wrong and needs to be proactively resisted. However, one can hold to the biblical roles of elders and be against abuse...and they can be dealt with separately. In other words, supporting the biblical position of male elders hip does not, therefore, mean you support abuse. It turns a serious issue into a red herring.