Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry

Adam Harwood

Editor

Spring 2020 • Vol. 17, No. 1

The Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

NOBTS President
James K. Dew, PhD

NOBTS Provost
Norris Grubbs, PhD

Editor & BCTM Director
Adam Harwood, PhD

Typesetting
Hampton Keathley

Book Review Editors
Archie England, PhD
Dennis Phelps, PhD

2020 EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Bart Barber, PhD
First Baptist Church of Farmersville, Texas

Rex Butler, PhD
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Nathan Finn, PhD
North Greenville University

Eric Hankins, PhD
First Baptist Fairhope, Fairhope, Alabama

Malcolm Yarnell, DPhil
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

The Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry is a research institute of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The seminary is located at 3939 Gentilly Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70126.

BCTM exists to provide theological and ministerial resources to enrich and energize ministry in Baptist churches. Our goal is to bring together professor and practitioner to produce and apply these resources to Baptist life, polity, and ministry. The mission of the BCTM is to develop, preserve, and communicate the distinctive theological identity of Baptists.

The Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry is published semiannually by the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry. Copyright ©2020 The Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. All Rights Reserved. This peridiocal is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database® (ATLA RDB®), http://www.atla.com.

CONTACT BCTM
baptistcenter@nobts.edu
www.baptistcenter.net

SUBMISSIONS

Visit the Baptist Center website for submission guidelines.

Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry

Southern Baptist Complementarianism: Perspectives and Prospects

Women and Ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention: A Brief Historical Overview[5]

Broad Complementarianism in the Southern Baptist Convention

On the Universal and Particular Offices of Proclamation in relation to Women as Teachers in Church and Seminary

The Strategic Importance of Ministry to Women Programs in Theological Education

A Discussion on Women in Ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention

Book Reviews

Southern Baptist Complementarianism:
Perspectives and Prospects

Nathan A. Finn, PhD & Amy C. Whitfield, MA

Nathan A. Finn is Provost and Dean of the University Faculty, and professor of Christian Studies and History at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina.

Amy C. Whitfield is Associate Vice President for Convention Communications at the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.

During the final two decades of the twentieth century, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) became embroiled in a denominational controversy that left no part of Southern Baptist life untouched. It has been common for self-confessed conservatives to argue that the controversy represented a “Conservative Resurgence” because the SBC shifted back to its theological roots in historic Baptist orthodoxy. Meanwhile, it has been common for so-called moderates to argue that what really happened was a “Fundamentalist Takeover” because the Convention’s right wing wrested control of the denomination by use of political processes. There is truth to both of these accounts. The Controversy was a theological renovation of Southern Baptist life that was enacted through political processes. Simply put, it was complicated.[1]

For conservatives, the theological flashpoint became biblical inerrancy. But it was never only about that doctrine. By the mid-1980s, the closely related issues of women’s ordination and women in pastoral ministry had become key points of division between Southern Baptist conservatives and moderates.[2] The historic SBC consensus had been what came to be called complementarianism during this same period. Complementarians believe Scripture teaches that husbands are to lead their wives and the pastoral office is reserved for men. Southern Baptists clarified their complementarian conviction with a resolution opposing women’s ordination in 1984, an amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message on familial roles in 1998, and a revision to that same confession in 2000 that affirmed a male-only pastorate. Remaining moderates disengaged from Southern Baptist life, so the case seemed settled. Simply put, it is still complicated.

Today, the Southern Baptist Convention is a thoroughly complementarian denomination. Yet, in recent years it has become increasingly clear that while complementarians agree on the basic biblical principles summarized in the current Baptist Faith and Message and expanded upon in the Danvers Statement, there remains plenty of areas of disagreement.[3] What formal ministry vocations in a local church are open to both men and women? Can a woman preach to a congregation if she does not serve in the office of pastor? What about teaching gender-mixed audiences in a Sunday School class or small group? Can women serve as seminary professors, and if so, are there any limitations to the courses which a female professor can teach? What about deaconesses? Is there a relationship between complementarianism and sexual abuse? Our Southern Baptist debates over these questions are part of a larger intra-complementarian conversation within evangelicalism. In the same week we wrapped up our edits and wrote this brief essay, a well-known conservative female Bible teacher has published a book questioning some widely accepted elements of complementarianism, which has already resulted in a substantive response from a well-known complementarian scholar at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood website.[4]

This is a topic about which we care deeply. We have both worked at multiple Baptist institutions that are committed confessionally to complementarianism. Over the years, the two of us and our spouses have had numerous conversations about this topic over meals, in the faculty lounge, and in the hallways of denominational meetings. We have invested personally in women who are convictional complementarians and are wrestling through how to use their gifts to advance the kingdom. We have been concerned about and sometimes even embarrassed by what we consider to be inappropriate applications of complementarianism. We have also disagreed with and been frustrated by folks who seem embarrassed to be complementarians. As denominational servants who are also scholars of Baptist history and identity, we think this is an important family discussion for Southern Baptists to have, but the way we have the discussion matters just as much as the outcome. We must find a way to balance personal conviction with charity toward others who see some things differently. We must also remain a tradition that champions the supreme authority of Scripture, the priesthood of all believers, and local church autonomy. We hope that the perspectives here can demonstrate a spirit of collegiality among people who cooperate for a shared mission and unite around a common statement of faith.

We are grateful to our friend Adam Harwood for his gracious invitation to serve as guest editors of this issue of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry. We also want to thank our contributors for their willingness to participate in this conversation. Church historian Lloyd Harsch opens with a historical overview of how Baptists have thought about the question of women in ministry. His work is primarily descriptive, setting the stage for the prescriptive essays that follow. New Testament scholar Denny Burk, who also serves as president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has written widely on gender and sexuality. In his essay, he argues from Scripture for a “broad” complementarianism and applies his position to some of the key points of disagreement among those committed to the traditional biblical understanding of gender roles. Theologians Malcolm and Karen Yarnell come from a somewhat different perspective than Burk. Their essay makes the case from both Scripture and Baptist historical theology for a distinction between the universal and particular vocations of proclamation, applying this distinction to the question of women teaching classical theological disciplines in a seminary context. Emily Dean and Tara Dew bring expertise in the areas of discipleship and education, particularly related to ministry preparation for women. Their essay makes a compelling case for the importance of theological education in the area of ministry to women. Finally, we share the edited transcript of a panel discussion on women in ministry hosted at the Cooperative Program stage in the exhibit hall at the 2019 SBC Annual Meeting. This conversation with Kathy Litton, Jeana Floyd, and Katie McCoy explores a range of practical questions related to the experiences of women in ministry contexts.

Each of these contributors are committed Southern Baptists and convictional complementarians. They do not always agree with one another on the finer points of the latter. Nevertheless, we believe they represent some of the healthy diversity within the boundaries of Southern Baptist complementarianism. Each of their opinions needs to be heard and considered, with open Bibles and callous knees, as we seek to be faithful to Scripture and encourage and empower women to flourish as the believer-priests God has called and gifted them to be. Our prayer is that this issue of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry will help pastors, seminarians, women’s ministry leaders, professors, and others to think through what it means to be complementarian and how Southern Baptist women can better be encouraged and equipped to use their gifts for kingdom service.

Women and Ministry in the Southern Baptist
Convention: A Brief Historical Overview[5]

Lloyd A. Harsch, PhD

Lloyd A. Harsch is chair of the Division of Theological and Historical Studies, and professor of Church History and Baptist Studies, occupying the Cooperative Program Chair of SBC Studies at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Depending on the audience and the speaker, the mere mention of “women in ministry” can be an occasion for raising concern, awareness, or hackles. However, women participating in congregational life and ministry has been, and continues to be, integral to vital, healthy church life. This volume of the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry will explore Southern Baptists’ current understanding of how women are involved in ministry within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The full range of ministry provided by women is beyond the scope of this article, which will focus more narrowly on visible ministry roles by giving a brief overview of women and ministry roles in the SBC.

Definitions

From our founding, Baptists have proclaimed the gospel of redemption through faith in Jesus to both men and women, with the expectation that both are capable of giving a response. Both men and women repented of their sin and were saved by God’s mercy and grace. Both came together to form congregations for worship and ministry.

God’s call for salvation includes a call to discipleship and ministry. This applies equally to men and women. In this broad sense, all Christians, including Baptist women, are ministers. In discussions on women and ministry over the past 50 years, the term “women in ministry” has been used in some quarters as a euphemism for women as senior pastors. Restricting the term to refer only to the senior pastor of a congregation clouds the issue and adds confusion to the discussion. For clarity, the term will be understood in the broader sense in this article. As Baptist Christians, all women who are serving God, in whatever capacity, are women in ministry.

Among the theological distinctives which characterize Baptists is the concept of the priesthood of all believers. At salvation, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in each believer. As a result, each believer can be led by God in understanding Scripture and applying it to one’s life. Southern Baptists affirmed this concept in the current edition of the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM): “each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord.”[1]

The presence of God’s Spirit does not guarantee a faultless interpretation. Because of humanity’s fallen nature, even faithful believers must seek wise counsel in this task. Freedom of interpretation is balanced by accountability to Scripture and to the larger body of believers.

Whether or not it is proper for a woman according to Scripture to be ordained and serve as the senior pastor of a congregation separates egalitarians from complementarians. This is the key difference between the two positions on women in ministry. While both views affirm that women have served and ought to serve in ministry, the “difference lies in whether it is proper for a woman to lead in ministry.”[2]

As complementarians, Southern Baptists are united in their conviction that the role of pastor/overseer has been delegated to men. In describing pastoral ministry, the BFM (2000) states, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”[3] However, there are many other positions of service in addition to that role. Service in these roles is where complementarians disagree. The closer an activity comes to serving as a pastor, or appearing to function in that role, the more problematic it becomes for women serving in that capacity.

In an article for the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW),[4] Wayne Grudem, one of the founders of CBMW, presents his perspective on appropriate ministry roles by arranging a variety of ministry activities into three categories. They proceed from the greatest areas of concern for him to the least, beginning with “governing authority,” then proceeding to “teaching responsibility and influence,” and concluding with “public recognition and visibility.”[5] His list is helpful as a beginning point for discussion because it delineates the main areas of concern: authority and teaching. Other complementarians will disagree with his categorization and prioritization of specific activities. Determining whether a ministry activity fits in an appropriate category has been the source of disagreement across the decades among complementarians. The question is, when a woman serves in ministry, is the authority associated with that role usurped or delegated?

Deacons, Ordination, and Ministry Staff

Baptists in the South began to expand rapidly in the wake of the First Great Awakening. An important contributing factor was Congregationalists (descendants of the Puritans) accepting believer’s baptism by immersion and forming Baptist congregations. Congregationalists were Reformed in theology, but practiced congregational polity. One of the most influential of these new Baptist congregations was at Sandy Creek, North Carolina. Founded by Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall, the congregation helped start more than 40 additional congregations across the region and produce 125 ministers.[6]

In the midst of this expansion, Daniel’s wife, Martha, was noted for her fervent preaching and public prayers.[7] However, Martha Marshall was the exception, and by 1800, as the movement became more established, women did not serve in such a visible capacity.[8] Some early congregations included women as deacons. Morgan Edwards, a Baptist pastor and pioneer American Baptist historian of the late eighteenth century, reported more than a dozen churches with women deacons in Virginia (9), North Carolina (3), and South Carolina (1).[9] These women ministered to other women when a male presence would have been inappropriate, especially during baptism.

One of the earliest Baptist confessions of faith, written in 1611, describes the role of deacon, for both men and women, as to “releave the necessities off the poore.”[10] This was the only confession to mention women in this role. Subsequent confessions by both General Baptists (Anabaptist heritage) and Particular Baptists (Reformed heritage) categorize the office of deacon along with elder (pastor).[11] As the role of deacon began shifting from ministry to management, the scope of women’s ministry changed.[12] R. B. C. Howell, one of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 1845, outlined in his book on Deaconship a more administrative role for male deacons and a supportive ministry role for non-ordained deaconesses.[13]

While ordination is not a biblical requirement in the same way as baptism and the Lord’s Supper, it serves the purpose of assuring congregations that their pastor’s “call and qualification had been given careful consideration by others and had received their approval.”[14] A notable exception was Charles Spurgeon, who did not believe in ordination.[15] Ordaining deacons gave congregational imprimatur for them to be able to carry on ministry when the pastor was unavailable. Ordination raised the leadership status of deacons, placing them closer to the pastoral role. As a result, fewer congregations had women deacons. In a position paper, theologian Stan Norman prepared for the SBC’s North American Mission Board (NAMB), he noted:

The BFM 2000 leaves open the issue of whether or not women can serve as deaconesses in SBC churches. My position is that, if a local church ordains its deacons, then women cannot serve in this capacity. In SBC life, ordination carries with it implications of authority and oversight, and I believe the Bible relegates authority and oversight to men (I Timothy 2:12–15). If a church, however, does not ordain its deacons, then the authority-oversight prohibitions would not apply.[16]

Beginning in the 1950s, a small number of congregations did ordain women deacons, but the practice was not widely accepted.[17]

The need or desirability for ordination plays a significant role in other ministry roles as well. Initially, the pastor was the only ordained staff member of the congregation. The remaining places of ministry were staffed by lay volunteers, including women. For example, in 1950, almost 70% of the music and youth positions in North Carolina were filled by women. However, by 1980 the number had dropped to 16%.[18] Once ordination became accepted or expected for other ministry positions, it brought into question women’s suitability for filling such roles.[19]

Missions

Women have played an active role in support of missions and as missionaries. The Triennial Convention’s first contribution was made by a woman.[20] Female mission societies formed to support its work. In the first five years of the SBC’s existence (1845–1849), its Foreign Mission Board (FMB) appointed 19 missionaries, of which 9 were women.[21] There were eight husband and wife teams, one single man, one native Chinese worker, and one single woman. The single woman was Harriet Baker, who responded to the FMB’s need for female missionaries. Appointed in 1849, she arrived in 1850 to teach women and children but returned in 1853 due to ill health.[22]

Ann Graves of Baltimore, whose son served in China under the appointment of the FMB, formed a local group to read letters he sent from the field and pray for the work. When the SBC met in Baltimore in 1868, her meeting expanded to include women attending the meeting with their husbands, then expanded further when these women returned home to form mission bands of their own.[23]

While few in number, single women missionaries had a significant impact. In 1872 the FMB’s report expanded to include a separate report, “Women’s Work.” After describing the work done by these “Bible Women,” the report proclaims, “We therefore heartily endorse the policy of the Board in sending unmarried women, who have consecrated their lives to the work of missions, into the foreign field.”[24] This was immediately followed by an appeal for women to form female missionary societies in their congregations.

That same year, Edmonia Moon was appointed to China. Her celebrated sister, Charlotte Diggs “Lottie” Moon, followed in 1873. Lottie’s primary focus was working with women and children.[25] Noting the important contributions Lottie made in such a short time, T. P. Crawford, a twenty-year veteran missionary in China, had this to say about her in his report to the SBC,

Miss Moon is making rapid progress in the language. She promises to be a real missionary. Only send out another of the same character to live and labor with her. The women of China must be converted to Christ.[26]

Not all of Lottie’s activities occasioned praise when they tested the boundaries of authority and leadership. She advocated for women to have an equal voice when deciding matters relating to mission operations.[27] On some occasions, her ministry activities drew closer to what was expected of a male pastor, rather than a female missionary. While Lottie did not campaign for women as pastors, neither did she shy away from actively presenting the gospel when the need or opportunity arose. When addressing the women, “she could not keep the men from listening from adjoining rooms” and “everybody knew that she had a way of harvesting the souls of men who eavesdropped on her work with women.”[28]

Women would prove to be the prime movers in the Temperance movement and the growing Sunday School movement as it spread across the South in the 1870s and 1880s.[29] Women also contributed articles to many SBC journals, magazines, and newspapers in the 1880s and 1890s.[30] Women continue to minister to thousands of Southern Baptists through their writing.

Convention Participation

When the SBC was organized, participation was for “members who contribute funds, or are delegated by religious bodies contributing funds.”[31] The first Convention gatherings met in local churches with speakers addressing those assembled from the pulpit. This made women’s participation questionable since they would be speaking in church and from the pulpit. The first woman to register as a delegate[32] to the SBC was Myra Graves, wife of Baylor University’s former president Harry Graves (1846–1851). She enrolled in 1877 and 1882, but she did so using only her initials, which did not draw attention to her presence.[33]

This changed in 1885 when wives of two prominent Arkansas messengers attempted to register as messengers along with their husbands. M. D. Early was pastor of a leading congregation and a Vice President of the Home Mission Board (HMB).[34] J. P. Eagle was an attorney and Speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives.[35] Their wives had been active in missionary support and were unaware that their presence as delegates would cause such a disturbance. Their enrollment as delegates in the Convention was challenged, and a committee was formed to examine the issue. While the committee reported that nothing in the SBC constitution forbade women from being delegates, they recommended changing the wording of the constitution from “member” to “brethren” to clarify the matter. The recommended change passed with 75% of the votes cast.[36]

While strange to twenty-first-century ears, few organizations allowed women to vote at that time. Many congregations did not allow women to speak at meetings.[37] In the North, the Trenton Association (NJ) in 1878 supported, but then tabled, a motion to prohibit women as voting delegates.[38] Although the Kentucky Baptist Convention allowed women to register as delegates as early as 1869, the practice was uncommon throughout the South for decades.[39] By 1900, women were accepted as messengers to most state conventions and associations.[40]

In response, women formed the Woman’s Missionary Union (WMU) in 1888 as an auxiliary organization to the SBC. In the North, women had also organized for missions. In 1871 they formed the Woman’s American Baptist Foreign Mission Society in Boston, followed in 1877 by the Woman’s American Baptist Home Mission Society in Chicago. These organizations were completely separate from the denomination. They raised their own funds and appointed their own missionaries.[41] The WMU did not want a completely separate existence. Lottie Moon explained, “Separate organization is undesirable, and would do harm, but organization in subordination to the [Foreign Mission] Board is the imperative need of the hour.”[42] The Convention echoed the sentiment with a resolution in 1885.[43]

WMU reports to the SBC were presented through the FBM until 1913, when the WMU report became a separate item of business. However, these reports were given by men on the WMU’s behalf. The first time a woman gave the report was in 1929 when WMU President Ethlene (Mrs. W. J.) Cox presented it, the first woman to address the SBC.[44] Women presenting this report became a regular occurrence after 1938. The SBC met in churches during these years. In order to assuage concerns about a woman speaking from the pulpit, the assembly would relocate from the sanctuary to another part of the facility for the report to be given.[45]

Regular monthly contributions for missions by the WMU paved the way in consistent giving for “systematic beneficence,” which later made forming a budget feasible.[46] Since the WMU was a significant source of mission funding, both the HMB and the FMB courted their support. However, the majority of WMU funds flowed overseas.[47]

As America entered World War I, Southern Baptists met in New Orleans. The most important business was to create Baptist Bible Institute, later renamed New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS). Also on the agenda was a motion to change the constitution to allow women to vote at SBC meetings. A motion to table this issue failed, and the change passed with 55% of the vote.[48] However, this was short of the two-thirds of the ballots needed, and the matter was referred to a committee that would report at the convention the following year.[49] The report in 1918 to change the constitution from “brethren” to “messenger” passed with little fanfare.[50] Two years later, the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote in a national election.

A 1989 report stated that no woman has served as head of an SBC entity or state convention, and the situation has not changed since that time.[51] Between 1927 and 1958, only five women served on the Executive Committee.[52] In 1984 messengers passed a resolution at the SBC, which “encourage[s] the service of women in all aspects of church life and work other than pastoral functions and leadership roles entailing ordination.”[53] Since then, women have served regularly on a variety of boards and as trustees of SBC entities.

Education

As Baptists established places of higher learning, separate institutions were created for men and women. The growing need for female missionaries led to a desire for theological education. The cost of establishing a separate female missionary training school was prohibitive, so with encouragement from John A. Broadus’ daughter, four female students began sitting in on classes at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in fall 1904. The following year their number swelled to 25.[54] In 1907 the WMU set up a Missionary Training School in Louisville to facilitate the process. Although women attended class, they did not take exams and received a certificate instead of a diploma. The Training School was renamed the Carver School of Missions and Social Work in 1951.[55] Training Schools also developed in partnership with Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Baptist Bible Institute when they were established.[56] Southern Seminary began accepting women in its regular degree programs in 1948.[57]

NOBTS was co-educational from the beginning.[58] At the 1921 commencement, Bachelor of Christian Training degrees were awarded to 15 individuals, including five women.[59] Pearl Bigler, the first known BBI missionary, and her husband, Raymond, were among them. The founding faculty included Mrs. John O. Gough as Superintendent of Women and Teacher of Bible Synthesis.[60] Professor of Missions Helen Falls, who joined the faculty in 1945, moved from the School of Religious Education to the School of Theology when missions was transferred there in 1957.[61] Falls retired in 1982 after serving for 33 years on the faculty.

Exploring the Boundaries

Movement toward egalitarian practice emerged in 1964. Addie Davis graduated from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in May 1963. Just over a year later, Davis was ordained a pastor by the Watts Street Baptist Church in Durham, NC, the first woman to be ordained by a Southern Baptist congregation. She was ordained so she could accept a call as pastor of an American Baptist congregation in Readsboro, VT.[62] Over the following decade, about a dozen women were ordained, primarily for work as chaplains.[63]

This movement coincided with the rise of the Women’s Liberation movement. In response, the SBC passed a resolution in 1973, “On the Place of Women in Christian Service,” which reaffirmed God’s order of authority of Christ over man and man over woman.[64] As the Conservative Resurgence emerged, the SBC passed four resolutions on women between 1980 and 1984. The resolution in 1980 was aimed at the Equal Rights Amendment and reaffirmed “the equal worth but not always the sameness of function of women.”[65] The same resolution was re-adopted in 1981. The 1983 resolution focused on affirming both women who were homemakers and those who worked outside the home. It concluded with encouragement to Southern Baptists “to explore further opportunities of service for Baptist women.”[66] A motion from the floor to add a phrase stating the Resolution did not endorse ordaining women failed.[67] The last resolution of the period dealt with ordination. It emphasized the “delegated order of authority” and that women are not “to assume a role of authority,” and concluded by encouraging “the service of women in all aspects of church life and work other than pastoral functions and leadership roles entailing ordination.”[68]

During this same time, egalitarian proponents began to organize. Supporters of ordaining women formed an organization called Baptist Women in Ministry in 1983 and established Folio as their newsletter.[69] Southern Seminary was a major source of advocacy of the movement.[70] Calling a pastor and his wife as a ministry team, or co-pastors, also emerged in the 1980s.[71] In 1987 Prescott Memorial Baptist in Memphis called Nancy Sehested as its pastor. Shortly after, the church was expelled from the Shelby Baptist Association for doing so. At the time, Sehested was the first woman to pastor a Southern Baptist church in Tennessee and one of just four or five in the country.[72]

Women seminary faculty members taught largely in the areas of music, Christian education, and later in counseling. Southern Seminary elected Molly Marshall to the faculty in the School of Theology in 1984. The previous year, she was ordained and began serving as pastor of a rural congregation some 50 miles outside of Louisville.[73] Marshall received tenure in 1988 in connection with David Dockery’s election to the faculty as an avowed conservative.[74]

Albert Mohler, a complementarian, became Southern’s ninth president in March 1993. In June 1994, he confronted Marshall about her views about “Christian inclusivism” and female pastors, views which had raised concern when she received tenure. As a result, she resigned from her position.[75] The same month that Mohler was elected president, outgoing president Roy Honeycutt appointed Diana Garland as Dean of the Carver School of Church Social Work. In 1995 she was asked to resign when she objected to Mohler’s refusal to hire a new faculty member who advocated women as pastors.[76] Two years later, the Carver School relocated to Campbellsville University.[77]

With the SBC’s move away from accepting an egalitarian position, the Alliance of Baptists (1987) and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (1991) were formed by those leaving Southern Baptist life. One of the key points of contention was support for women as ordained pastors. Yet in spite of this verbal support, the percentage of women serving as ordained pastors in the CBF has remained steady around 6% of all ordained pastors, while the Alliance reports more than 40% of its pastors as women.[78]

On the eve of events unfolding at Southern Seminary and the dawn of Ken Hemphill’s term as president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Karen Bullock was elected to the faculty in the School of Theology as Associate Professor of Church History in 1994, the first woman elected as full faculty and not just an adjunct at that institution.[79] She was presented to the Trustees at the end of Russell Dilday’s presidency and confirmed at the beginning of Hemphill’s. A popular professor, she served on the SBC Resolutions Committee (1996) and as Associate Dean directing the PhD program. In 2002, Sheri Klouda was elected as Assistant Professor of Old Testament Language (Hebrew).[80] Klouda received her doctorate from Southwestern Seminary and her previous degrees from Criswell College.[81]

Trustees did not grant Bullock tenure in 2003, meaning the next academic year would be her last.[82] Hemphill retired in 2003, and Paige Patterson became president later that year. In 2004, Klouda was informed she would also not receive tenure. The stated reason was that “a woman should not instruct men in theology courses or in biblical languages.”[83] Both Hemphill and Patterson were theologically conservative and complementarians, but gender was an issue for one and not for the other when it came to a woman teaching Hebrew or Church History.

In 1986, the HMB enacted a polity to withhold funds from church plants with women ministers.[84] The North American Mission Board, the successor to the HMB, voted not to endorse women as chaplains in 2002.[85] As noted above, the SBC took a definitive stand in 2000 by revising the Baptist Faith and Message to reiterate the long-standing position that both men and women are gifted for service within the church, but Scripture affirms that only men are qualified for the office of pastor.

Having moved back from egalitarianism, congregations are again exploring the boundaries of complementarianism. Apart from serving as senior pastor, what roles are appropriate for women? At the 2019 SBC meeting, Beth Moore was one of the panelists at a pre-Convention event hosted by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission addressing “Sexual Abuse and the Southern Baptist Convention,” while SBC President J. D. Greear hosted a discussion during the convention on women in ministry. John MacArthur’s subsequent remark about Moore sparked a new round of controversy.[86]

MacArthur, who is not a Southern Baptist, sees little room for women serving in public ministry and interpreted the women’s presence on the platform as a step toward women preachers.[87] The position of the congregation where Greear is the pastor is: “God has reserved the office of elder for qualified men. Beyond that, we believe that Scripture teaches that God intends for both women and men to be equally involved and engaged in ministry within the church.”[88] Both men consider themselves complementarians.

So the discussion continues. The complementarian landscape is wide and diverse. The limits and extent of authority and leadership remain the issue. In this volume, a variety of authors will explore the complementarian terrain from one end to the other and those in between.

Broad Complementarianism in the Southern Baptist Convention

Denny Burk, PhD

Denny Burk is professor of Biblical Studies, director of The Center for Gospel and Culture at Boyce College, and president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in Louisville, Kentucky.

The story of the Conservative Resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention is a story about the determination of grassroots Southern Baptists to reform the organs of the denomination to reflect their belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. At the time, all sides of that long controversy seemed to realize that the heart of the conflict was about biblical authority and how that authority should shape the congregations of the SBC. As a part of that, the question of men’s and women’s roles in the church and in the home was front and center. Would Southern Baptists accept what the Bible says about manhood and womanhood, or would they set aside the scriptural vision for a feminist alternative? Conservatives favored the former, moderates the latter, and therein was a controversy that resulted in a victory for conservatives. One of the chief pieces of evidence of this victory appeared when Southern Baptists adopted revisions to their statement of faith in 1998 and 2000—revisions that specify a countercultural position on the roles of men and women within the church and the home:

“While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture” (Article VI, BF&M 2000).

“The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God's image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation” (Article XVIII, BF&M 2000).

This position reflects not only the conviction of grassroots Southern Baptists, but it also reflects the beliefs of countless other non-Southern Baptist evangelicals who hold in common with Southern Baptists a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. It is a countercultural position and an expressly complementarian one. It is the position of Southern Baptists today. As recently as 2016, the Southern Baptist Executive Committee commissioned a report confirming that “Southern Baptists follow a complementarian perspective of gender roles in the local church and across denominational entities.”[1]

When the SBC was enduring its battle for the Bible in the final decades of the twentieth century, American evangelicalism was in the midst of its own intramural debate about the roles of men and women in the church and in the home. Influenced by feminist tendencies in the culture, egalitarian readings of the Scripture were on the ascent, and more traditional viewpoints seemed to be in retreat. When the controversy began, there was no term for the “conservative” position. In 1987, however, that began to change. That year Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and a handful of others drafted what is now called the Danvers Statement as a summary of biblical teaching about how men and women were to relate to one another within the church and the home. They published their statement to the world and founded a new organization called the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to promote the Danvers vision among evangelicals. They also coined a new term to describe the position summarized in Danvers—complementarianism.[2]

For a generation, Danvers complementarianism has exerted a major influence, not only in evangelical churches and institutions but also within the Southern Baptist Convention itself. Many of the Southern Baptists who led the Conservative Resurgence were also, at the same time, instrumental in drafting and promoting Danvers complementarianism. It is no accident that the 1998 and 2000 revisions to the BF&M track very closely with Danvers. It was by design. To this day, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood includes three Southern Baptist seminary presidents, one Southern Baptist college president, one Southern Baptist seminary provost, four Southern Baptist professors, and one Southern Baptist pastor.[3] Danvers complementarianism and BF&M 2000 complementarianism have been friends from the beginning and continue to be today.

All of this history testifies to decades of unity among Southern Baptists about their fundamental beliefs concerning manhood and womanhood. Southern Baptists are happy complementarians and, for the most part, always have been. In recent years, however, that unity has come into question in the form of an intramural debate among complementarians. Whereas the BF&M 2000 settled the question of who would pastor SBC churches and lead SBC homes, it left a number of other questions unanswered. If qualified men alone are to serve as pastors, then what teaching ministries could women fulfill? Can they serve as guest preachers in the local church? Can they teach the Scripture to mixed-gender audiences in Sunday School? Should women teach traditional theological disciplines to both women and men in SBC seminaries? Can women serve as deacons? All of these questions are of immense practical importance to Southern Baptists, and yet the BF&M does not address them explicitly.

Different factions of complementarians have begun to distinguish themselves by the way that they apply complementarian principles in these various contexts. As a result, two different species of complementarians have begun to emerge—narrow complementarians and broad complementarians.[4] On the one hand, narrow complementarians tend to believe that our application of complementarian principles should be limited to the church and the home. Pastors should be men, and husbands should lead their homes. Beyond that, however, the sky is the limit in terms of women in ministry. A woman ought to be free to do the very same ministries that an unordained man can do. If an unordained man is allowed to stand in the pulpit and preach, then why not a woman as well? Broad complementarians, on the other hand, have argued that the Bible teaches us a much broader application of complementarian principles. After all, Paul himself says, “I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12).

The aim of the current essay is to argue that the broad complementarians have the better part of this argument. That is to say, broad complementarians have given a more faithful rendering of what Scripture actually teaches and, therefore, of how we ought to order our congregations. My assignment in this essay is to offer broad complementarian answers to the following questions that Southern Baptist congregations are currently asking: Should women preach in the local church? Should women teach the Scriptures to mixed-gender audiences in non-pulpit settings (e.g., Sunday School)? Should women teach men in seminaries? And should women serve as deacons?

Should Women Fill the Pulpit?

The BF&M 2000 does not specify in so many words whether women ought to fill the pulpit on Sunday mornings. We can only speculate as to why the framers did not address this particular point in the BF&M. Perhaps it never came up because the framers were not facing an ideology that divides the pastor’s function from the pastor’s office. There is evidence that they did, in fact, consider the issue of women preaching and the issue of female pastors to be one and the same issue. In 2007, three of the framers issued a commentary on the BF&M 2000. In their discussion of Article 6 on “The Church,” they argue not only that “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by scripture,” but also that “God’s instruction is for men to assume and fulfill the preaching ministry.”[5] While the first part is clearly articulated in the BF&M, the second is not. And yet, they added the prohibition on women preaching without controversy at the time. Pastors preach to congregations. If the Bible disallows a woman from serving as a pastor, then it certainly also disallows her from preaching to the gathered congregation. The office and function of a pastor were viewed as a piece. This has certainly been the position of the vast majority of Southern Baptist churches, where you would be hard-pressed to find any woman filling the pulpit on any given Sunday morning. The tradition and long-standing practice among Southern Baptists is clear even if the BF&M is not on this particular point.

Even though the framers likely held the office and function of a pastor together, they did not specify as much in the text of the BF&M itself. The BF&M addresses the office of pastor but does not address as clearly the function of a pastor. It is this space in the confession that has opened up a conversation in the current day that likely never would have occurred to complementarians in an earlier generation: should women preach to the men and the women of the gathered congregation? The answer to this question cannot be answered simply by appeal to tradition or confession, for traditions and confessions can only be authoritative insofar as they accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture.

How can women preach when Paul so clearly states that “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority” (1 Tim 2:12)? Narrow complementarians sometimes argue that 1 Tim 2:12 does not prohibit women from “teaching and exercising authority” but only from “teaching with authority.” In other words, as long as a woman does not preach as an ordained pastor, she is allowed to address the gathered congregation just as an unordained man might do. Narrow complementarians argue that it is only the office of pastor that Paul means to prohibit, not teaching or preaching per se. The result is that narrow complementarians believe that a woman can do whatever an unordained man can do in the church’s teaching ministry.

Kathy Keller advances this position explicitly in her 2012 book, Jesus, Justice, & Gender Roles: A Case for Women in Ministry. She writes,

Anything that an unordained man is allowed to do, a woman is also allowed to do. . . . Women are encouraged to be active, verbal participants in the life of the church—teaching, exhorting, encouraging, and contributing in every way except in the office of elder (or wherever juridical authority rests in a particular church).[6]

So how does Keller get from “I do NOT allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” to “I DO allow a woman to teach and to lead a man”? Keller’s interpretation of this verse relies heavily on Craig Blomberg and well-known egalitarian New Testament scholar Phillip Payne.[7] She argues that there is a hendiadys in this text so that Paul is not prohibiting two things (teaching and authority) but one thing (teaching with authority). Thus, the only kind of teaching that Paul prohibits to a woman is the kind that an elder would do—the kind that renders “the final judgment of truth versus heresy” and that has the “power of discipline” behind it.[8]

If an unordained man is allowed to lead other men in the church, then so should a woman. The key issue is ordination, which is restricted to men. Keller writes: “The corollary of not ordaining women is to make sure that every role legitimately open to unordained men and women is filled with women as well as men.”[9] Notice that Keller not only indicates that women teaching and leading men is allowable but also that it is required. She contends that to exclude women from teaching and leading men is “disobedience” and “injustice” (pp. 32, 34). She writes,

The matter of ordaining women is not an issue of justice, but marginalizing them is an issue of injustice.

There is injustice to be addressed, and biblical practices should be restored in the way women’s gifts are deployed, or fail to be deployed, in churches with complementarian or even more rigid philosophies. I am frequently embarrassed by others who use the title “complementarian” but who go beyond Scripture to legislate arbitrary rules about the age of boys when women must not teach Sunday school to them any longer, or whether a female small group leader should have a male co-leader if the group is mixed, and so on. . . .

These nonbiblical boundaries fall under Jesus’ condemnation of obeying “the traditions of men” instead of “the commands of God” (Mark 7:8).[10]

For Keller, any stricture on women’s ministry outside ordination is an unjust and sinful limitation of those women. They must be allowed to teach and lead the men of the congregation, or else something unjust and wrong has occurred in the church.

It is worth considering Kathy Keller’s challenge on this latter point. Is it really “injustice” and “disobedience” when churches do not allow women to teach or to lead men? This is a question worth considering because contemporary conversations are being pressed more and more in terms of justice.

It is never unjust to obey Scripture. Both sides of this dispute would agree with that statement, and that is why it is not helpful to cast this debate as a justice issue. Rather it should be understood primarily as a Bible issue. What does the Bible actually teach about women leading and teaching men?

The interpretation of 1 Tim 2:12 really is the crux of the issue. I have written extensively about this text in Women in the Church.[11] In the same volume, Andreas Köstenberger and Al Wolters have argued decisively against the presence of a hendiadys in 1 Tim 2:12, and their conclusions have largely been accepted, even by egalitarian interpreters. For that reason, I will not rehash all of the arguments again here. The bottom line is that Paul prohibits both teaching and exercising authority over a man. And that is why nearly every major English translation renders the text as such. Narrow complementarians are mistaken to argue otherwise.

Keller is a Presbyterian, and there are some notable ecclesiological differences that are driving some of our disagreements here. She believes that pastors have unique authority conferred on them at ordination—an authority that enables them not only to teach but also to excommunicate members who defy biblical teaching. That is what she means by “teaching with authority.” This view, however, relies on a view of ordination that many Baptists, like myself, reject.[12] The idea that ordination confers an authority to excommunicate is not only at odds with what Baptists believe about ordination but also with what we believe about church discipline. In the Bible, the congregation has the power to excommunicate, not any single elder or presbytery (see Matt 18:15–20; 1 Cor 5:1–13; 2 Cor 2:6). No Baptist pastor has the juridical authority that Keller claims Presbyterian pastors have. For this reason, Keller’s contention—that a woman should be allowed to do anything an unordained man can do—has no purchase at all within Baptist and free church congregations. Our views on ordination are very different at this point.

Keller’s view also falters because it fails to recognize that Paul’s prohibition relates to pastoral function. It only relates to the pastoral office by way of implication. Notice that Paul prohibits teaching and authority (functions), not teachers and pastors (offices). Tom Schreiner elaborates this point:

I want to ask the question about the way Paul formulated his prohibition against women teaching and exercising authority over a man. Is the form and manner in which the command is given significant? Many say no, arguing that the verse is just another way of saying that women can’t hold the pastoral office. But I am not so sure. Paul could have easily written, “I don’t permit a woman to serve as pastors, as overseers, and as elders.” Biblical interpreters recognize that the form in which something is written is significant. When we read 1 Timothy 2:12, it doesn’t directly speak to the issue of office; it addresses the matter of function, prohibiting women from teaching and exercising authority over a man. I glean from this point that office isn’t the only thing in Paul’s mind; the function is important to him as well. In fact, the verse speaks directly to the issue of function and says nothing about the office per se. It is interesting, therefore, that many seem to turn the verse around by allowing the functions, but denying the office.[13]

This is precisely the weakness of Keller’s exegesis. Paul prohibits the functions of teaching and exercising authority over men. An implication of that prohibition certainly does preclude women from the office of pastor, for a pastor could hardly be a pastor without being apt to teach (1 Tim 3:2). Nevertheless, the actual focus of the command is the prohibition of function, and narrow complementarians like Keller often miss this. As a result, they end up allowing what Paul prohibits when they say that women can preach to a congregation of men and women.

Another weakness of the narrow complementarian reading of this text is that it sometimes fails to consider how the prohibition is grounded in God’s good design of his creation. As a result, the prohibition seems groundless and arbitrary. Even Keller argues that she cannot explain why God’s Word would advance such a prohibition:

“Why did God arrange things this way, with a gender-based division of labor?” At the end of the day, I still don’t know. I could speculate, but speculation often leads to error. . . . I have found it fruitless, leading only to self-pity and anger in my own life, to question God’s disposition of things when I do not understand.[14]

Although this perspective recognizes that the pastorate is limited to men, it fails to see how this prohibition is rooted in God’s good design. It makes Paul’s gender-based command seem arbitrary. As Kevin DeYoung has argued:

If men and women are different by creational design, then we can’t simply quarantine “ordination” and say that manhood and womanhood have no bearing on church ministry or church roles so long as the pastors and elders are men. The issue is not mainly titles or labels or the laying on of hands. The issue is about function. To be sure, complementarians may not agree on where to draw all the lines concerning home groups and Sunday school classes and public worship, but as a starting place for these discussions we have to remember we are talking about the flourishing of divine design, not adhering to a set of narrow and seemingly arbitrary rules.[15]

Jonathan Leeman likewise writes:

When churches hesitate to say what distinguishes men and women, God’s explicit precepts for the church and home begin to look arbitrary, even a little embarrassing. You can hear the Sunday school lesson now: “The Bible teaches that women should not be elders, but here’s what I really want you to hear: women can do everything else a man can do.” The tone or subtext is, “No, these commands don’t make a lot of sense because we all know men and women are basically the same. But he is God, sooo . . .”

The whole enterprise becomes a minimization project. We minimize our created differences and we minimize the reach and significance of what the Bible does explicitly command.[16]

“Minimization” happens whenever narrow complementarians restrict the application to eldership but allow what the apostle forbids in 1 Tim 2:12. God’s commands are not arbitrary. They align with his design in creation. What is best for us is what aligns with his design for us as male and female. And a part of that design relates to the church’s teaching ministry. Paul grounds his prohibition in that divine design: “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve” (1 Tim 2:13). To miss this is not only to miss the point of God’s Word. It is also to miss what will advance our own good and flourishing.

Should women fill the pulpit to preach to the gathered congregation? As we have seen above, the Bible clearly prohibits this. Narrow complementarians are out of step with Scripture on this point.

Should Women Teach Men in Non-Pulpit Settings?

The answer to the question in the heading will largely depend upon how one answers the previous question. If Paul prohibits not only the teaching office but also the teaching function in 1 Tim 2:12, then this will have implications for wherever the Bible is preached among God’s people. As we consider these implications, however, it is important for us to understand exactly what Paul means to prohibit when he says that he does not allow a woman to “teach” over a man.

He is not talking about all teaching—as if a woman cannot teach geometry or reading or arithmetic to anyone. The word for teach in this context specifically refers to teaching Christian doctrine (cf. 1 Tim 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 2:2). In other words, it applies to those who would teach and preach the Bible. The gift of teaching is not merely passing along information from one person to another. The gift of teaching in Paul’s writings has a certain content and mode. The content of the gift of teaching is the authoritative, apostolic deposit, which is now inscribed for us in the New Testament (Col 2:7; 2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 2:2).[17] This teaching, therefore, is done in the imperative mood. It contains an explanation, but it also includes commands and prohibitions. For that reason, it is always authoritative because it instructs people what they are to believe and to do.[18] Here is how Paul talks about teaching:

1 Tim 4:11, “Command and teach these things.”

2 Tim 4:2, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.”

It is very clear that when Paul has the gift of teaching in mind, he uses words like command, preach, reprove, rebuke, and exhort. The apostle clearly thinks teaching involves instruction given with imperatives and commands. As Douglas Moo concludes, “teaching always has this restrictive sense of authoritative doctrinal instruction.”[19]

That is why Paul issues the prohibition that he does in 1 Tim 2:12. Women must not teach men. Why? Because of the order of creation (1 Tim 2:13). The role of leader in the first marriage was Adam’s. His leadership was established in part on the basis that God created him first (a principle of primogeniture). The order of creation establishes male headship in marriage (cf. 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23), and a woman teaching and exercising authority overturns this order. After all, how can a wife submit to her husband if she is telling him what to do when she preaches? Avoiding this potential conflict is the reason why Paul bases the gender norms for teaching upon the gender norms for marriage.

This also explains why Paul commands women to be silent in 1 Cor 14:34–36. Paul is not commanding absolute silence, or else he would be contradicting his allowance of female prophesying in 1 Cor 11:5. Rather, Paul is specifically commanding female silence during the judgment of prophecies.[20] What happens if a husband prophesies, and his wife is a prophet as well? Is the husband supposed to be subject to his wife during the judgment of prophecies? Are husbands and wives supposed to suspend male headship during corporate worship? Paul’s answer to that question in 1 Cor 14 is a clear no.

Paul does not want anything to happen during corporate worship or in any other setting that would upset the headship principle that he so carefully exhorted his readers to obey in 1 Cor 11:2–16. For that reason, Paul enjoins women to refrain from the judgment of prophecies. He is not commanding an absolute silence on the part of women. Indeed, he expects them to be praying and prophesying.[21] He does, however, command them to be silent whenever prophecies are being judged. And the women are to do so out of deference to male headship.

Notice that the explanation in verse 34 indicates that headship is indeed the issue: “The women . . . should be in submission.” The Greek word translated as submission is the same one from verse 32. A woman cannot be subject to her husband while simultaneously expecting him to submit to her judgments about his prophecy. To avoid this conflict, Paul says that while women may prophesy, they may not participate in the judgment of prophecies. In this case, the judgment of prophecies is tantamount to teaching, which Paul absolutely prohibits in 1 Tim 2:12.

What is the bottom line here? The fact of female prophecy in the Old and New Testaments is no argument in favor of female teaching/preaching. The gifts of prophecy and teaching are distinct in Paul’s writings, and Paul, therefore, regulates them differently. While Paul allows women to prophesy in the presence of men, he does not allow them to teach men (1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:34–36). This feature of the New Testament’s teaching about gifts and ministry is lost whenever the gifts of prophecy and teaching are conflated. This is a confusion that careful readers of Scripture should wish to avoid.

But it is also instructive to us about how the Bible regulates the teaching/preaching ministry of the church. On what principle would one apply this prohibition to the congregation but not to groups within the congregation? If teaching men violates the principle of male headship in the corporate assembly, it certainly would have the same effect in other subgroupings of the church. If the prohibition applies to the one, then it certainly applies to the other as well. A woman may teach a Sunday school class, for example, but should avoid doing so when there are adult men present.

Should Women Teach Men in Seminary?

This question is not merely one that Southern Baptists are facing but also one that complementarians writ large have been facing. For example, John Piper attempted to field this very question a couple of years ago on his popular “Ask Pastor John Podcast,” where the following question was put to him:

Dear Pastor John, I’m a seminary student at an orthodox but interdenominational school in the United States. I share your complementarian understanding of God’s design for male and female roles and relationships in the home and church. On that basis, I have recently doubted whether or not my seminary ought to allow women to teach pastors in training. What do you think? Should women be hired as seminary professors? What is your best case?[22]

In response, Piper makes the case that women should not be hired as seminary professors. Why? Because seminary professors who train future pastors ought themselves to be qualified as pastors. The calling of a seminary professor is not merely to download information. Piper argues,

The proper demand on the seminary teacher is to be an example, a mentor, a guide, an embodiment of the pastoral office in preparing men to fill the pastoral office. . . . The attempt to distinguish the seminary teaching role from the pastoral teaching role in such a way that the biblical restriction to men does not apply to the seminary teaching results in a serious inconsistency. . . . If it is unbiblical to have women as pastors, how can it be biblical to have women who function in formal teaching and mentoring capacities to train and fit pastors for the very calling from which the mentors themselves are excluded?

I think Piper has made a compelling case here—one that is consistent with a complementarian view of gender roles and one with which I have long agreed. Moreover, it is a position that is not new. It is precisely the case that many other complementarians have made over the years.

For example, the Southern Baptist Convention was facing this very issue back in 2007. As a result, the Southern Baptist Texan interviewed presidents of SBC seminaries asking them to describe their respective seminary’s practice regarding female professors.[23] They all answered basically in the same way. But they did not rule out female professors altogether. Rather, they argued that there are some areas in which they would not hire women to teach.[24]

Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes:

We have identified certain positions that closely parallel the office of the pastor, the elder, the overseer, that we would only look to call and hire men for those particular areas. Those areas include preaching, pastoral ministries, theology, and biblical studies. I could not imagine that we would hire a woman to sit in one of those professorial positions as an instructor over men.[25]

Likewise, Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, responds:

We believed it was right in accordance with biblical teaching that the faculty members who would model the pastorate in the teaching of disciplines specifically for pastors would be qualified by Scripture to be pastors. This was not just an abstract theory. This also was what was advised to us in terms of the necessity of specifying which teaching positions must in all cases be qualified in this manner. So we defined all teaching positions in the school of theology as of necessity to be pastor-qualified.[26]

There were others who answered similarly, but you get the gist. All of these answers presume not only a certain job description for the theology professor but also a certain purpose for the theological seminary. The seminary exists to serve churches and, for that reason, their primary mission is (or at least should be) the training of pastors for churches. In the core pastoral disciplines (preaching, pastoral ministries, theology, and biblical studies), the best approach is to employ professors who qualify for the pastoral office. Outside of those disciplines, there would be no obstacle to hiring female professors. And that is why so many of our Southern Baptist Seminaries (including the one where I teach) employ women in certain disciplines.

If seminaries really wish to serve actual churches, then they must not adopt a teaching ministry that undermines the ecclesiastical norms of the churches they serve. The contrary view—which is based on the observation that the seminary is not the church—misunderstands what the purpose of the seminary is.

Piper’s conclusion crystallizes the issue:

The issue here at the seminary level is largely the nature of the seminary teaching office. What do we aim for it to be? Is it conceived as an example and model and embodiment of pastoral vision, or not? That will lead us in how we staff our seminary faculty.[27]

Sadly, many theological educators and seminaries have lost sight of the primary mission of training pastors for churches, but Southern Baptists must not. Our seminaries must remember that their ministries are in service to complementarian churches, and the seminaries’ teaching ministry should honor the norms of those churches.

Should Women Serve as Deacons?

In 1 Tim 3:8–13, Paul sets out the qualifications for those who would hold the office of deacon.[28] In verse 11, Paul addresses “women” (Gk. gynaikas). Why would the apostle drop in a reference to “women” in a passage about deacons? Some think that he does it because he wishes to imply that these are not just “women” but female deaconesses. After all, the list of qualifications for these women is very similar to that of the deacons and even to that of the elders. Why specify such qualifications if an office for women is not in view? Also, a woman named Phoebe is called a “deacon” in Rom 16:1. Is not Paul just invoking the same office that Phoebe holds in Rom 16:1? At least, that is how the argument goes for understanding “women” as female deacons.

Nevertheless, this line of reasoning is not persuasive. The key word in 1 Tim 3:11 is the typical Greek term for “woman” or “wife.” The same word is used in the very next verse, and it clearly indicates “wife” in that verse. Also, the word “likewise” suggests a similar, nevertheless distinct, group from the deacons (just like the word “likewise” in verse 8 suggests that deacons are a similar but distinct group from the elders). Since the material before and after verse 11 is focused on deacon qualifications, it makes more sense to see verse 11 as somehow related to deacon qualifications as well.

Phoebe’s designation as a diakonos is unconvincing evidence of female deacons. Diakonos has a semantic range, and not all uses of the term denote an office of the church (e.g., 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 6:4). The mere use of the term diakonos in connection with someone from a particular church does not establish the meaning “deacon.” With respect to Phoebe, I agree with the caution urged in the NET Bible notes on Rom 16:1.

Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a diakonos in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a diakonos; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the diakon- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance. In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way.

At best, Phoebe’s status as a deacon is less than certain and, therefore, can hardly establish the case for deacons in 1 Tim 3:11. The ESV’s rendering captures the correct sense of the term: “their wives” (i.e., “deacons’ wives”).

Paul is most likely arguing that the behavior of the deacon’s wife needs to be exemplary, much like submissive children are evidence of an elder’s management of the home in 3:4. These ladies, whether or not they held office, did hold responsibility for serving others. That is why they must have character qualities fitted for a servant.

Should women be deacons? As discussed above, the evidence from Scripture in favor of female deacons is, at best, inconclusive. Do churches who recognize female deacons contradict the Bible’s teaching about male headship and qualified male leadership in a church? The answer to that question is, “No, not necessarily. But they might.” Those women recognized as deacons would not be violating male headship so long as deacons have no ruling authority. But there are many churches that have deacons who function as leaders of the church. Even though they are called deacons, they function like shepherds minus the teaching and discipleship. They lead the church. In churches like that, having female deacons undermines biblical headship because the deacons are de facto elders, if not actual elders.

But such churches do not have a biblical understanding of the diaconate. The deacons are functioning in a way that contradicts their biblical mandate, and that does not promote the maximum health of the church. The church does not need a board of directors called deacons. The church needs a board of shepherds called elders. And the church needs deacons who are full of the Spirit and who come along and facilitate that ministry of the word by their service.

No complementarian principle is violated when women serve as deacons so long as that role actually reflects one of service and not of leadership. Nevertheless, I oppose female deacons not on complementarian grounds but on the grounds that I do not believe the Scripture gives any examples of women holding the office. On the contrary, 1 Tim 3:8–13 and Acts 6 present them as men.

Conclusion

Tom Schreiner raises questions about narrow complementarianism that the narrow complementarians cannot answer well: Why can a woman engage in the functions without occupying the office? Isn’t such a limitation evidence of males holding onto power? If a woman can, in principle, preach in church Sunday morning sometimes, then why not all the time?[29] These questions expose weaknesses in the narrow complementarian perspective that will eventually be exploited by those who want to move more fully in the direction of egalitarianism. I am not saying that all “narrow” complementarians are closet egalitarians. I do not believe that. Nevertheless, I am saying that severing function from office is a weakness in their view, whether they acknowledge it or not. The disciples of today’s narrow complementarians will eventually see the inconsistency and will push the boundaries even further toward full-blown egalitarianism. It is only a matter of time. When that happens, the boundaries marked out by the BF&M will be in jeopardy.

I love my brothers and sisters in the SBC who are narrow complementarians and who disagree with me about these things. I am challenged by them to think more clearly about how to incorporate gifted women into the ministries of my own church. I am grateful for our unity in the gospel as it is framed in the Baptist Faith and Message. The churches of the SBC will never be monolithic on these issues. There will always be some variability. Nevertheless, my hope and prayer are that we can reason with each other in good faith and perhaps learn and sharpen one another even as we disagree. If we love and care for each other as we ought, then we will be able to do this. I am confident we can.

On the Universal and Particular Offices
of Proclamation in relation to Women
as Teachers in Church and Seminary

Malcolm B. Yarnell III, DPhil & Karen Yarnell, MDiv

Malcolm Yarnell is Research Professor of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

Karen Yarnell is adjunct professor in Women’s Studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

We have been asked to address the question of whether women may fulfill the office of teaching theology within the setting of a Southern Baptist Convention seminary, but the answer one adopts is bound together with how women are received as teachers in the local churches. The question of how women may function as public teachers may not be answered through a simplistic, non-canonical, and non-contextual appeal to a particular prooftext, nor is the issue explicitly addressed within the official confessional documents of the various Southern Baptist seminaries.

The Baptist Faith and Message limits the office of church pastor “to men as qualified by Scripture” (Art. VI), but certain aspects of Southern Baptist ecclesiology discourage a relaxed equation between church and seminary. Formal extra-ecclesial institutions like denominational seminaries are not manifestly addressed in the Bible. This requires caution against hasty applications. Stating it bluntly, we assert a seminary does not qualify theologically as a church; therefore, a seminary employee may not, by virtue of her seminary employment, be considered a pastor.[1] Yet many pastors also serve as seminary professors—one of the authors serves as both a seminary professor and a church pastor. For the sake of best practices within theological education, seminary constituents properly perceive correlations between church and seminary, and between pastors and professors. Numerous beneficial synergies result from such correlations.

However, to borrow from Aristotelian logic, any correlation may be accidental or substantial. The seminary professor’s relation to the church’s pastorate is accidental rather than essential. Indicating the lack of an essential relation is the fact that many seminary professors are currently not pastors, and vice versa. Due to the accidental nature of a seminary’s relation to the church, and of a seminary professor’s relation to the pastorate, we must be careful not to identify substantially these distinct institutions or their respective offices with one another. Any Baptist seminarian who deigns to equate his institution or office with that of the church as a matter of identity will likely find himself in great difficulty with the churches and their pastors when he tries to offer baptism or the Lord’s Supper by virtue of his seminary office.[2]

Still, because the seminaries were created by human beings to assist the churches in training ministers, we recognize the need for the accidental correlation to remain, and preferably remain strong. But what exactly constitutes the contours of that correlation? In particular, should those seminary disciplines historically identified as being in close relation with the office of the pastor be reserved for professors who are pastors? At the conclusion of this essay, we provide three possible answers, from the perspective of human wisdom, to that question.

However, divine wisdom also requires we first survey Scripture and consult the interpretations of other believers to discern a faithful structure for those answers. We begin with the biblical understanding of “office” and the spectrum of views on the ecclesiological office(s) of proclamation offered by biblical scholars and systematic theologians. The bulk of this essay contains a constructive proposal for more clearly defining the two offices of proclamation: the universal office and a particular office for elders. Only afterward will one be prepared to evaluate optional answers to the proffered question.

“Office” in Scripture and Tradition

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the English word “office” derives through Old French from the Latin officium, itself a compound of the verb facere, “to do,” and the noun opus, “work.” An office is fulfilled when a particular work is done. In contemporary English, “office” may refer to a space for work, a position for a person who performs a service, service done for another person, or a worship service. The King James Version (KJV) of the New Testament uses the term “office” eight times: thrice to describe the work of an Old Testament priest (Luke 1:8–9; Heb 7:5); twice to describe a deacon (1 Tim 3:10, 13); once to describe an apostle (Rom 11:13); once to describe a bishop (1 Tim 3:1); and once to differentiate the offices of all members of Christ’s body (Rom 12:4). The English Standard Version (ESV) uses the term “office” four times: twice to describe the service of an Old Testament priest (Heb 7:5, 23), once of an apostle (Acts 1:20), and once of an overseer (1 Tim 3:1).

Technically, however, there is no particular Greek term for “office” in the New Testament. Rather, the English word is introduced periphrastically to convey the translator’s theological perception of textual meaning. This practice results in the introduction of some interesting ideas that either support or challenge authoritarian views of the church office. For instance, in the ESV, the apostles’ choice of Matthias to replace Judas and be numbered with the Eleven was not so he might become an “apostle” but an ἐπισκοπὴν (episkopēn), “bishop” (Acts 1:20). And in the KJV, every Christian is said to inhabit an “office” (Rom 12:4), but the ESV and the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) chose to translate πρᾶξιν (praxin) with “function” instead. These paraphrases alternatively reflect clericalist or laicist tendencies among Bible translators.

Alternations between clericalist and laicist understandings of the various offices in different churches refract a series of deep and longstanding divisions within Christian history, divisions embodying divergent paradigms of power and authority. Within the New Testament itself, freedom and equality were held in a tension of power that reflected the need for both reserve and order. For instance, the Apostle Paul allows for a broad if restrained spiritual dynamism in the Corinthian community even while he advocates a certain order for the households of faith addressed in the Pastoral Epistles. Such apostolic respect for both freedom yet order, or for equality yet restraint, has rarely if ever been successfully maintained in Christian history.

According to Stanley Burgess, after the New Testament period, the early church developed two contrasting traditions, the “minor tradition,” which was characterized by lay enthusiasm and was eventually suppressed, and the opposing “major tradition,” which prioritized order to the point that a sacramental priesthood began to take shape by the time of Cyprian.[3] The rigid Western hierarchy of the High Medieval Period, centered in the church of Rome, represented the apotheosis of a sacrifice-offering and salvation-dispensing clericalism. During the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation, doctrinal rediscoveries of the priesthood of all believers, the sole propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, and the normative authority of Scripture routed this heady, sacerdotal system in many areas of Western Europe.[4]

Since the Reformation, both Roman Catholic and Protestant ideas of authority in the church have been transformed through the egalitarian cultures encouraged by the Enlightenment and various social revolutions.[5] In spite of the fact that Baptists, who stand within the “fourth strand” of the European Reformation, are generally situated on the laicist side of the spectrum in Christian history through their covenantal ecclesiology, they too manifest a dialectical struggle between laicism and clericalism.[6] This struggle may be seen conceptually at the academic level within the disciplines of biblical studies and theological studies. The differences, we propose, are best reconciled through the identification of two offices of Christian proclamation, one inhabited by all believers and one inhabited by ordained pastors.

Southern Baptist Dialectics

Contemporary Southern Baptist Bible scholars diverge over the import of the concept of “office” when exegeting the New Testament. For instance, there were two Bible dictionaries published by the Southern Baptist Convention’s official publisher in the 1990s. The books carried similar names, and two articles carried the same title, “Offices in the New Testament.” While the parallel articles have commonalities, they maintain differing emphases.

The first article regarding New Testament offices, published in the 1991 Holman Bible Dictionary, denied a settled form of office. The author developed a fluid and universal doctrine of offices centered on the Lord: “In the New Testament, the concept of ‘office’ speaks to functions and tasks, rather than status and position. Consequently, offices are dynamic rather than static and related to charismatic gifts of the Spirit rather than to the privileges of authority.” Moreover, Christ’s place must be preserved. “Every Christian has an office, a ministerial function to perform. The only head of the church is Christ. The order of the church is not based on a hierarchy of position and authority but on the faithfulness of the members in exercising their gifts of ministry.” Church offices are subordinated to church membership. “In Christ, no one has a special status which separates an officer from the regular members. All have gifts of service, and all must serve. The whole church is a royal priesthood; the only head of the church is Christ. Every member has an ‘office,’ whether or not that office is considered ‘official.’”[7]

The second article, published in the 1998 Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, recognized the term “office” is technically absent from the New Testament but nonetheless asserted its necessity. There are three “somewhat essential” characteristics to an office, including “permanency” and “authority,” among five “formal characteristics.” The New Testament implies various offices, including those of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and bishop or elder, as well as teacher, deacon, other leaders, and widows. Conceiving the offices more formally than the first author, the second author admits, “The NT focus on these offices is usually on function more than status or position.” He concludes with a brief reminder that, while there are regular offices in the church, “all believers share in the responsibility of ministry.”[8]

In summary, among Southern Baptist Bible scholars, a dialectic appears. One detects a formal idea of “office” in Scripture, while the other subordinates any settled office to the sole priesthood of Christ and the universal priesthood of believers. When one turns to contemporary systematic theologians among Southern Baptists, similar tendencies emerge. The laicist tendency, on the one hand, competes with a clericalist tendency on the other. We will rehearse James Leo Garrett’s laicist emphasis before reviewing Mark Dever’s clericalist emphasis.

Garrett on the Priority of Lay Ministry

In his magisterial Systematic Theology, James Leo Garrett Jr. “deliberately” considers the ministry of the church first under the heading of the “General, or Lay Ministry: The Priesthood of All Christians.”[9] Garrett grounds the priesthood of the church canonically in the Old Testament “priesthood of the people of Israel” (Exod 19:4–6; 1 Pet 2:9) and ontologically in the New Testament priesthood of Christ (Matt 12:17–21; John 12:20–26; John 17; Hebrews).[10] These two grounds—the church’s direct connections to Israel and to Christ—definitively detach the universal priesthood from any authoritative dependence upon a clerical priesthood.

Exalting Christ, Garrett writes, “we are servants sharing that Servanthood which He as the Servant par excellence creates.”[11] The Christian church is, by way of ontology, the church of Jesus Christ and, only by way of ministry, a community with offices.[12] The universal priesthood of the church is hereby simultaneously elevated through its unmediated dependence upon Jesus Christ and humbled through its radical dependence upon Jesus Christ as the Servant who sacrificed himself for others. Christian ministry may thus only be performed through self-sacrificial service for others.

Next, the “dean of Southern Baptist theologians” highlighted the actual functions of the universal priesthood. Prior to Garrett, twentieth-century Baptist theologians emphasized the empowering implication of the Christian’s direct access to the Lord and/or the responsibility of Christians to serve as part of the priesthood of believers. But Garrett points out that access is a “corollary” of Christ’s own high priestly office.[13] The universal priesthood works through offering spiritual sacrifices. These sacrifices are non-propitiatory, for Christ Jesus alone offers himself once for all time as the perfect propitiating sacrifice.

The spiritual sacrifices of the general priesthood may be classified according to the four functions of “worship, witness, stewardship, and service.”[14] The sacrifices of worship include continual “praise,” being “the fruit of lips that confess his name” (Heb 13:15). It is noticeable that, due to the biblical requirement for permanent practice, such praise necessarily includes both public and private acts of worship. The sacrifices of witness include the responsibility “to declare the wonderful deeds of him who called” believers to faith (1 Pet 2:9). The sacrifices of stewardship and service indicate a vigorous social or humanitarian component must be present in the church’s activities (Rom 15:15–16; Phil 2:17; 4:18; Heb 13:16).

According to Garrett, the New Testament positively lays upon every Christian the responsibility of continual proclamation. No Christian is excluded from this call. The universal priesthood functions in such a way that liturgical proclamation must be continually practiced, whether in private worship or in public worship. Evangelistic proclamation to unbelievers also remains the responsibility of all believers. Any clerical limit on universal lay proclamation, unless otherwise directly expressed in Scripture, would elevate a human ordinance above the divine ordinance for spiritual sacrifices offered by the royal priesthood of all the faithful.

Garrett on the Ordained Ministry

After establishing the ontological necessity of the universal priesthood or lay ministry, Garrett discusses the “Special, or Ordained, Ministry.” The functions of prophecy, priesthood, and kingship were located in one person earlier in Israel’s history but separated after Samuel. Israelites fulfilling these roles were often identified through laying on of hands with anointing. Because he is the greatest prophet, high priest, and king of kings, the Old Testament practice of anointing culminated in Jesus, the Anointed One.[15] Christos is the Greek translation for the Aramaic Messiah, which means “anointed one.” Christ himself appointed the Twelve to their “mission of teaching, preaching, and healing” (Matt 9:35–11:1).

The earliest Christians chose the Seven to serve so as to protect the apostles’ ministerial focus upon “the word” and “prayer” (Acts 6:4). Some of the Lord’s spiritual gifts to the church “are capable of being associated with church offices: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers or pastor-teachers” (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11). Garrett found five New Testament texts that “pertain” to what we now call “ordination.” While we use the language of “laity” and “clergy” to distinguish universal Christian ministry from ordained Christian ministry, that terminology originated not with Scripture but with Clement of Rome.[16] Garrett deems it debatable to conclude the Jewish synagogue had any impact on early church structures.

Garrett respects the ordained ministry even as he refuses to elevate it unduly. Martin Luther’s recovery of biblical truth required the ordained ministry to be seen as “both derivative from the priesthood of all Christians and something directly instituted by Jesus Christ.” A calling to ordained ministry is “both inner (from God) and outer (through men).” Standing within the evangelical Protestant tradition, Baptists “have taught and practiced a twofold ordained ministry within the congregation,” those of “deacons” and of “bishop.” The latter office is also described, according to its functioning, as “elder” and “pastor.”[17]

When he turns to the contemporary Baptist context, Garrett carefully rehearses the various ideas and practices among Baptists with regard to ordination to pastoral ministry, ordination to other ministries, women as pastors, pastoral tenure and authoritarianism, ecumenism, the nature of the diaconate, the qualification and tenure of deacons, women as deacons, and ruling elders. Garrett places before the reader the various options and their arguments from Scripture, history, reason, and experience. After reviewing the conflicts regarding the ordination of women as pastors, he rehearses the mediating position which concludes women “cannot serve as elders,” “may assist in worship services, and serve as Sunday School teachers and deacons,” and should not have their “normal ministries” hindered. One properly assumes he held this mediating position. Garrett also advocates the “cultivation of a deep relationship of mutual trust” between laity and clergy and decries any “pastoral authoritarianism” that breeds “fear” and “resentment.”[18]

Dever on the Priority of Clerical Ministry

While Garrett emphasizes an active priesthood of all believers offering spiritual sacrifices to God, Mark E. Dever highlights an active eldership preaching the Word to a receptive gathered congregation. As president of Nine Marks Ministries and senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Dever writes extensively upon contemporary ecclesiology. A graduate of both Duke University and Cambridge University, this pastoral theologian contributed the chapter on the doctrine of the church to the widely used multi-author A Theology for the Church, edited by Daniel L. Akin. By virtue of its publisher, its use in several Southern Baptist seminaries, and the composition of his co-authors, Dever’s chapter therein carries some sense of denominational approbation. Therefore, our analysis focuses on that essay.

With personal appreciation for the English Reformation’s Puritan heirs, Dever orients his ecclesiology toward their construal of the gospel. Positively, he says, “The church is the gospel made visible.” Negatively, “A distorted church usually coincides with a distorted gospel.”[19] According to Dever, the church is important for us because it is important to Christ, and the church must obey him. Yet Dever’s account of the nature of the church is primarily anthropological. He defines the church as “the body of people called by God’s grace through faith in Christ to glorify him together by serving him in his world,” then proceeds at length to consider the “people of God” in both the Old and New Testaments.[20]

After considering the “attributes of the church” according to the credal formulation of oneness, holiness, universality, and apostolicity, Dever keys in on the “marks of the church,” prioritizing “right preaching.” The language is striking: “The church is generated by the right preaching of the Word.” While “God creates his people,” it is “the right preaching of the Word of God that creates the church.”[21] The instrumentality of preaching in the generation of the church cannot be stated strongly enough. The second Reformation mark of the church, the “right administration of the ordinances,” is also dependent upon proclamation, for the two practices of baptism and the Lord’s Supper “in short, proclaim the gospel.”[22] While his approach implies an anthropological account of the church’s generation, Dever is careful to qualify, “the gospel centers the church not on human actions but on receiving by faith and repentance the rewards of God’s actions in Christ.”[23]

Due to its creative nature, the church’s office of proclamation is of critical importance. This office is granted to the “elder,” who is also interchangeably called “shepherd or pastor” and “bishop or overseer.”[24] Dever awards the elder an exclusive and expansive office of teaching. “All of the qualifications listed here [in 1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9] are repeated elsewhere in Scripture as applicable to all Christians, except one—the ability to teach. The essence of the elder’s office lies with ensuring the Word of God is well understood, evidenced by the commitment to teaching one’s particular flock this Word.”[25] “Most fundamentally, the elder is a minister of the Word.”[26] Dever also argues for a plural eldership led by a senior pastor.

Dever’s exalted view of the elder as teacher takes a vicarious form: “Christians gather in congregations to hear one who stands in the place of God by giving his Word to his people. Through preaching Christians come to know and understand God and his Word. It is a word to which Christians contribute nothing, other than hearing and heeding.”[27] Dever also calls for the centrality of preaching to be recovered today. “The purpose of preaching God’s Word to God’s people is to build up, or edify, the church, which is God’s will for the church.” “Whenever pastors recover the centrality of preaching in their ministry, beneficial effects follow.” “God’s Spirit creates believers through the preaching of the Word.”[28] He decries the contemporary suspicion of authority and mitigates the humility of Christ by calling for Christians to stop deriding authority.[29]

Dever on the Duties of the Laity

When Dever turns to the responsibilities of the laity, he treats them primarily in the context of the congregation. He first calls Christians away from “individual commitment” toward “a committed corporate obedience.”[30] Dever recognizes the universal attribute of the church but notes the predominant New Testament use concerns “a Christian assembly.”[31] The preaching of the gospel generates or creates the church, and the two ordinances distinguish and contain the church.[32] The form of the Christian church has been, from its beginnings, “congregations of specific, identifiable people.” Church membership ought, therefore, to be a central consideration for believers.

“The responsibilities and duties of members of a Christian church are simply the responsibilities and duties of Christians.” The correlation of Christian life with the corporate life of the congregation dominates Dever’s understanding of lay duties. In his primary academic theological contribution to ecclesiology, members are largely receptive and corporate in nature. Even when active rather than receptive in agency, members remain corporate in nature. Members are “to be baptized,” “to regularly attend the Lord’s table,” “to hear God’s Word and to obey it,” “to regularly fellowship together,” “to love God, one another, and those outside their fellowship,” “to evidence the fruit of the spirit,” and “to worship God.”[33] Members must also “regularly attend gatherings of the congregation,” “seek peace and unity,” and “sympathize with one another.” They must “remember their leaders and imitate their life and faith,” for elders “have been given the task of bringing God’s Word to God’s people.”

But “New Testament local congregations” may not delegate certain responsibilities. This Baptist says the church is responsible “for ensuring a qualified minister of the Word preach[es] to them,” “for the faithful stewardship of the gifts entrusted to it,” and “for ensuring the gospel message reaches out across these different spheres.” As for church order, the “fundamental responsibility under God for the maintenance of all aspects of public worship of God belongs to the congregation.” The congregation is responsible for “discipline, even over those who are called to be its leaders.”[34] Her leaders ought to be “explicitly qualified,” “reputable with outsiders,” and have a “sense of accountability” as “undershepherds” subject to Christ’s rule. Elders must remain humble and take the initiative in directing church affairs. Little is said regarding the limits of pastoral authority.[35]

Dever considers the “mission and purpose of the church” to be “the worship of God, the edification of the church, and the evangelization of the world.”[36] The congregation acts together as a congregation. When mentioning individuals, he reminds the reader that responsibility “lies not just with individual Christians but with congregations.”[37] “Lives lived in regular accountability make the gospel clear to the world.” In another duty list, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, regular attendance, and “submission to the discipline of the congregation” are listed prior to individual duties like “regularly praying for the congregation and tithing.”[38]

Where Garrett deliberately placed the universal priesthood of believers with its defined spiritual sacrifices first, Dever treats the universal priesthood later and with a warning. He recognizes the “rich Protestant doctrine” of “soul competency” but warns against it. It should not be accepted as a doctrine of “human ability,” nor ought one use the doctrine to undermine respect for church leadership. “Rejecting leadership deprives the church of Christ’s gift, impoverishing the body, and hinders the church in its life and work.”[39] Dever’s discourse on the universal priesthood is primarily concerned with protecting the office of the pastor. Spiritual sacrifices are not considered.

In Dever’s systematic ecclesiology, individualism languishes, congregational unity is emphasized, and the place of the pastor as the proclaimer of the Word is exalted. In Garrett’s systematic ecclesiology, the priesthood of Christ was exalted, the priesthood of all believers emphasized, and the special ministerial office of the clergy remained. Both systems are simultaneously Evangelical and Baptist, for both depend upon the Word of God and seek to be orthodox in theology while retaining both congregationalism and the office of the pastor. The differences are significant even as both give place to a particular office of proclamation alongside the universal office of proclamation.

The Saint and the Swineherd

In a separate essay written for a volume exposing culturally compromised ecclesiology, Dever addressed the priesthood of believers again. He summarized its biblical basis and noted its Reformation recovery but focused on the history of the doctrine since the 1960s. Dever affirms spiritual sacrifices and recounts common Christian actions, but proclamation is not among them. Late twentieth-century developments are classified according to two streams—“the open church,” which submerges or eliminates the traditional pastorate, and “the active church,” which moderates every member ministry.[40] He then lists 15 “blessings” the doctrine may bring to the churches and 12 “dangers” of “member-ministry at its worst.”[41]

The doctrine’s modern interpreters compromise the church through misunderstanding Scripture. Dever cites only one source to support his denial that Eph 4:11–12 requires pastors to equip members for ministry.[42] He correlates the evangelical doctrine with the theological errors of Watchman Nee. It misunderstands history and promotes anarchy, divisiveness, and reductionism. It also mismatches duties with people and promotes narcissism. Alongside divisiveness, he deems “particularly perilous” the doctrine’s diminishing of authority. Those who employ it “unwittingly” risk “aiding and abetting an anti-authoritarianism and a wrong radical secular individualism.”[43]

Dever wished to protect the clergy from the people’s “abuse” and “anti-clericalism” but remained, in 1998, relatively silent about clergy who abuse and oppress. Rather than warning against the misuse of authority, Dever advocated appreciation for “the goodness of authority.” That Scripture treats “authority” (ἐξουσία, exousia) variously—for instance as both a demonic phenomenon (Acts 26:18; Eph 2:2; 6:12; Col 1:13) and a Christological phenomenon (Matt 7:29; 9:6; 28:18 and par.)—fails to elicit comment. He primarily hoped to allay the fears of laypeople regarding clerical authority and oppression.[44] Dever concluded all Christians “bear some responsibility for the ministry of the Word in our midst,” but the layperson’s part in proclamation remains receptive and supportive. Only the elders or “pastors and teachers” are “to mature God’s people, to minister God’s Word, and to build Christ’s body.”

Dever brought his clericalist review of the universal priesthood to a conclusion with a tale from medieval England. Hugh, a bishop of Lincoln he deemed “saintly,” was once supported by an exemplary layman, the “Swineherd of Stow.” Dever lauded the Swineherd for his sacrificial gift of money to the Saint. The message is clear: Laypeople ought not “ignore or abuse” the clergy but, instead, support the clergy. “Blow, blow thine horn, good Swineherd, the sound shall echoes wake, And laymen rise to do their part as thou, for Christ’s dear sake.”[45] For “their part,” laypeople serve Christ by serving the clergy. Mark Dever’s theology of universal priesthood exhibits a curious penchant for medieval clericalism.

Notwithstanding that essay’s penchant, Dever’s entire corpus verifies Baptist convictions. Although we use the term “clericalism,” this categorization is finally relative among Baptists and ought not to be confused with Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. Dever resides in a narrow spectrum with Garrett over against hierarchical ecclesiology. His firm congregationalism derives theologically from divine love. Drawing upon the church’s Trinitarian creation, Dever expounds a salutary thesis: “The love we share as a result of sharing in the Spirit is to shape our love together as Christians.”[46] Such love is exemplified in the church’s “witness,” “assurance,” “nature,” and “obedience.” Under the last, he laments, “Abuse is widespread and at times terrible in its consequences. But such abuses do not delegitimize authority itself.”[47] Dever seeks to balance Baptist congregationalism with ministerial authority and responsibility.[48]

Regarding the universal office of proclamation, Dever teaches that evangelism is one of the church’s three purposes.[49] He mourns that “‘clergy persons’ such as I, whether intentionally or unintentionally, often give off the vibe that evangelism should be left to the professionals.”[50] But to the contrary, “If you are a believer, you have been commanded to share the good news of Jesus Christ with others.”[51] This universal responsibility, stemming from Christ’s Great Commission,[52] is a form of “private witness” distinct from “the public ministry of the Word.”[53] With the distinction between public and private in mind, he affirms personal evangelism occurs with “use of the Bible” and by “preaching the Word.”[54] Dever inspires both clerical and lay readers to action through recounting the evangelism of both ministers and their congregations as well as individual men and women of diverse social classes.[55]

The Universal Office of Christian Proclamation

Numerous passages in Scripture indicate that all human beings were given both ability and responsibility to act for God at their natural creation. Moreover, all Christians are given both ability and responsibility to proclaim the faith after their spiritual conversion. Proclamation, therefore, should be considered from the perspectives of both creation and redemption. Afterward, soundings into the treatment of proclamation within the New Testament and among the free churches, especially with regard to the Great Commission, deserve a review.

Universal Proclamation in Creation and Redemption

From the perspective of creation, with regard to capability and responsibility, we note first that both man and woman were made in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27). One aspect of the divine image is that they were granted the ability of language for communion with God and his creatures, for he is a God who speaks (Gen 1:3, 5, 6, etc.; Ps 33:6) Moreover, both man and woman exercised that ability by communicating directly with God, with one another, and with other creatures (Gen 2:16, 19, 23; 3:2–3, 10, 13). Humanity, both male and female, was also given the responsibility to rule creation on God’s behalf, in God’s way, and for God’s purpose, along with a measure of great freedom (Gen 1:26, 28; 2:16–17). Sadly, however, the gift of language was used properly neither by Adam nor by Eve, as seen in Eve’s sinful misuse of language through what she spoke and in Adam’s sinful misuse of language for what he failed to speak (Gen 3:3, 6). After the fall, both men and women continued to use and misuse speech. The proclamation of the Law through Moses and the Prophets, and through Gentile consciences, continues to hold humanity responsible through speech and hearing (Rom 2:13–23).

From the perspective of redemption, when God sent his Son to take upon himself our human nature, he did so with explicit identification as the Word of God (John 1:1, 14). The Word of God incarnate, Jesus Christ, spoke human words that displayed his unique divine power (Matt 7:29). The Word and the Spirit continue to exercise power by bringing about the transformation of human life, through the convicting proclamation of the law and the converting proclamation of the gospel (Ps 119:9–12; John 17:17; 1 Cor 6:11). Thus, it should be clear that humanity was granted words to enable them to rule creation and that humanity is granted words to enable them to know God’s will and experience regeneration. Moreover, human beings graced with regeneration, through the internal convicting work of the Spirit and the external proclamation of the Word of God, are commanded to proclaim the good news of salvation to other human beings (Matt 28:18–20).

The Universal Mandate of the Great Commission

The Great Commission of Matt 28:18–20 has sometimes been reserved within church history for the administration of the apostles or their supposed episcopal successors. A restricted authority to fulfill the Great Commission was the dominant understanding until Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Baptists recovered the universal implications of the passage.[56] Benjamin Keach, a prominent seventeenth-century Particular Baptist pastor, popularized the term “Great Commission” as a description of the command of Christ in Matt 28:19–20.[57] He argued against restricting its fulfillment to any class of Christians: “for it is evident, the Administration or Act of Baptizing was not tied up to the Apostles, or to the more ordinary Ministers, but that any faithful gifted-Disciples might administer it as well as they.”[58]

A century later, the founders of the Modern Missions Movement recalled the commission’s universal relevance. For William Carey, “if the commission is restricted to the apostles, then subsequent evangelists have been disobedient.” To the contrary, Carey deemed universal evangelism not merely permissible but necessary.[59] Encouraged by Carey, the “Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen” (also known as the Baptist Missionary Society) began in the parlor of the private home of Mrs. Beeby Wallis. Wallis gained mythic status through her hospitality to the fourteen ministers, including Carey and Andrew Fuller, who first met there on October 2, 1792. Her lifelong support of the missionary enterprise culminated in the gift of that magnificent home, which is still used to advance the missionary enterprise.[60] The cri de cœur of these English Baptists exhibits an infectious enthusiasm: “Let then every Christian who loves the gospel, and to whom the souls of men are dear, come forward in this noble cause.”[61] The expansive theology of Fuller, the exemplary life of Carey, and the extraordinary generosity of Widow Wallis electrified Baptists worldwide to advance the universal fulfillment of Christ’s commission.

In less than a decade, the diminutive and dynamic Mary Webb led women in the Boston area to establish the Boston Female Society for Missionary Purposes. Two years later, Webb’s example encouraged her pastor to begin the influential Massachusetts Baptist Missionary Society. Through an extensive letter-writing campaign, she catalyzed American women to establish 210 other missionary societies. In the south, these included the first Baptist mission societies established in South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, all founded before the creation of the Triennial Convention in 1814. Moreover, Baptist women like Ann Judson, Henrietta Hall Shuck, and Charlotte H. White were among the earliest missionaries supported by the national convention. By 1888, the various southern women’s societies formed the Women’s Missionary Union, and in 1895 and 1931, the male leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention appealed to the WMU for assistance in shoring up the denomination.[62]

However, Southern Baptist women were interested in more than supportive ministry. Lottie Moon exercised an active ministry that galvanized women in the United States, even as she exorcised superiority complexes among male colleagues in China. She traveled widely, distributed Bibles, and proclaimed the gospel to women whenever possible. According to Leon McBeth, “Traveling to remote villages by rickshaw, Miss Moon would gather a crowd however she could and then read from the Bible and tell them about Jesus Christ. Some of the men missionaries complained that Lottie Moon was preaching, a charge that incensed her. She replied that the people needed and wanted to hear of Christ, and if the men did not like the way she was sharing the gospel, let them send some men to do it better.”[63] While Moon incensed some men with her readiness to proclaim the gospel publicly, her sacrificial life resulted in a reputation so great that the International Mission Board’s annual offering still carries her name.

But strong women like Moon have not always received approbation in the Southern Baptist Convention. For instance, while the SBC’s constitution did not originally restrict women from serving as messengers, it was amended in 1885 specifically to exclude them. It was not until 1918, after years of controversy, that women were allowed to vote in the annual meeting. That same year, Lee Rutledge Scarborough argued that women, who were long asked to support missions financially, “to give their sons to preach, and their daughters to be missionaries,” ought also to be given a voice.[64] Since then, however, only twice have women been able to win convention-wide offices, as Vice Presidents, in 1963 and 1976.

The major arguments against women having a role in the convention center on their supposed intellectual inferiority, Eve’s role in the fall, and the Apostle Paul’s forbidding a woman “the position of public speaker or preacher.”[65] One of the most strident arguments against women being allowed a voice in the Southern Baptist Convention was published by J. W. Porter. In his 1923 Feminism, he argued the 1918 grant of Baptist suffrage would inevitably lead to women as preachers. He believed that since women could now vote, there was nothing to keep them from chairing a committee or presiding over the convention. Porter was particularly incensed by the inappropriate dress adopted by some women in his day.[66]

On the other hand, there were leaders, even during the period when women were not allowed to vote in the SBC, who contradicted these attitudes. Fred D. Hale argued, “She can think as profoundly, reason as logically, and put her thoughts into clear, vigorous and beautiful language as her supposed-to-be intellectual superior.”[67] James Madison Carroll argued a female missionary could address both men and women, “at ten o’clock, it being the Sunday school and not the church hour.”[68] For Carroll, a woman might speak to men, just not in the role of a pastor. His brother, Benajah Harvey Carroll, established and filled the office of the deaconess with six women at the First Baptist Church of Waco in 1877.[69] Today, both laymen and laywomen continue to serve as trustees in the Southern Baptist Convention, perhaps because it is compelled by the desire to fulfill the Great Commission. Both men and women, married or single, continue to be appointed in substantial numbers by the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Baptist Faith and Message begins Article XI, “Evangelism and Missions,” with advocacy for the universal Christian office of proclamation: “It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations.” That first sentence stayed the same during both the 1963 and 2000 versions of the confession. In the article’s last sentence, however, the 2000 confession spoke explicitly of every Christian’s duty to engage in verbal proclamation. The earlier 1963 statement stated simply, “It is the duty of every child of God to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by personal effort.” The 2000 statement added, “by verbal witness.” If the universal office of Christian proclamation was implicit in the 1963 version of the Baptist Faith and Message, it became explicit in the 2000 version.[70]

The Universal Nature of Biblical Prophecy

“The Scriptures clearly teach that women functioned, at least occasionally, as prophets,” admits Thomas Schreiner, a proponent of the contemporary “complementarian” position.[71] Among the Old Testament prophets, one may find women functioning as such in each of Israel’s major periods, including Miriam (Exod 15:20–21), Deborah (Jud 4:4–5), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14–20), and Noadiah (Neh 6:14). The Talmud classifies Sarah, Hannah, Abigail, and Esther as “prophetesses.” Within the New Testament, one may classify the woman Anna (Luke 2:36–38) and the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9) as prophetesses.

Further proof for the universal nature of biblical prophecy may be found in a prayer of Moses and its divine approbation. When confronted with the jealousy of Joshua over the irregular prophetic ministry of two of Israel’s elders, Moses cried out, “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them!” (Num 11:29). Joel subsequently foretold that the Spirit would come upon all the people of God, regardless of gender, age, or social status (Joel 2:28–29). The fulfillment of this prophesy occurred when the Holy Spirit came upon the church at Pentecost, and unlearned people prophesied (Acts 2:16–18).

If all Christians must obey the Great Commission and the gift of prophecy was assigned to every classification of believer, does this entail women may teach or preach the gospel? Scholars divide over the answer. Schreiner and Wayne Grudem argue women should neither function as elders nor teach. Their arguments depend upon constricting New Testament prophecy to the “spontaneous” and “passive” reception of direct revelation and then assigning biblical exposition only to elders. They also dismiss the historically-widespread Christian position that New Testament prophecy includes both “foretelling” and “interpretation of Scripture.” Instead, Schreiner and Grudem developed contemporary biblical scholarship to answer contemporary cultural arguments over both spiritual gifts and feminism.[72] Grudem’s hermeneutic was criticized for being “over-schematized.”[73]

David Dockery says contemporary Baptists must address the evangelical conversation with modern feminism. He also warns, “the presence of a multitude of historical and cultural details must be maintained and accounted for.”[74] But it is hard work to pay attention to a multitude of details. On the one hand, those wishing to maintain the eternal truth of Scripture have sometimes ignored the Bible’s historical context. On the other hand, some allow contemporary culture to relativize Scripture’s eternal verity. Dockery decries the egalitarian reading of contemporary culture into the first-century text.[75] Dockery’s wise warning should equally caution complementarians against reading countercultural or subcultural ideas into the first-century text. Alas, many popular treatments fail to account for the canonical cultural nuances and often import ideas from contemporary cultural conflicts.

Because other Christians, including Baptist Christians, have faced these texts before, it would be wise to account for earlier historical readings of the relevant texts. Regarding the classical tradition, Pak demonstrates that Augustine, Gregory the Great, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas, along with many other patristic and medieval authors, affirmed prophecy includes both foretelling and biblical exposition.[76] During the Renaissance, Erasmus of Rotterdam “underscored a definition of prophecy as interpretation of Scripture.”[77] In the Reformation, Roman Catholic scholars like Cardinal Cajetan affirmed prophecy as the interpretation of Scripture, warning against enthusiastic departures from the Bible.[78] Pak’s detailed studies of Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, John Calvin, William Farel, Martin Bucer, and Philip Melanchthon, among others, demonstrate they believed the biblical office of prophecy undergirded the priesthood of all believers and that the primary nature of prophecy was biblical interpretation. Protestant Reformers “especially employed applications of 1 Corinthians 14 to argue that all Christians are called to proclaim God’s Word, interpret Scripture and discern right teaching.”[79]

Thus, the Reformers interpreted “prophecy” as the proper interpretation of Scripture (see 1 Cor 14:3). Based upon Ulrich Zwingli’s interpretation of 1 Cor 14, Zürich’s “prophecies” involved multiple proclaimers. Zwingli at first included laypeople in the exercises, but the Radicals openly challenged the Reformed clergy’s hegemony on biblical interpretation. In response, the Reformers “reframed their views of the prophet and prophecy in a number of critical ways.” The Magisterial Reformers “increasingly identified the ‘prophet’ more closely with the Protestant pastoral office.”[80] The Anabaptists, however, continued to include laypeople in their congregational exercises.[81] While the early Reformed classes in the Church of England kept the clerical hegemony in their prophetic exercises, Elizabeth I nevertheless suppressed them due to their tumultuous results.[82]

Regarding the question of women teaching among the earliest generations of Baptists, Curtis Freeman wisely responds, “The answer is a complicated story that requires careful telling.”[83] For instance, in the 1640s, some General Baptist women in the prominent Bell-Alley Church of London were accused of being “mechanick preachers.” However, the women understood their activity as “exercising,” not “preaching.”[84] This distinction likely draws on the tradition of “prophesyings” or “exercises” common among the Reformed. Although he did not develop this telling terminology, Freeman’s detailed research demonstrated that seventeenth-century Baptists had a vibrant tradition of female proclamation.

Like their modern counterparts, the earliest Baptists held a range of responses. Some suppressed the prophetic voices of women due to “the inferiority of their sex,” while still allowing them to profess faith, confess sin, sing psalms, say amen to prayers, and witness in a church trial.[85] Others, however, including the influential Western pastor, Thomas Collier, allowed women to preach as prophets.[86] The leading Particular Baptist pastor, Hanserd Knollys, agreed women could instruct men but cannot hold the pastoral office.[87] It has been estimated some 300 English women functioned as prophets between 1640 and 1660. Ten of the Baptist women published their sermons, theology, and/or experience.[88]

Keith Thomas discovered that, in spite of the emphasis on spiritual equality in these early free church congregations, such practices as lay preaching were eventually lost.[89] Eighteenth-century Separate Baptists in the American south were also known to have women who “exercise in public,” recalling the terminology of the English Reformation.[90] The laicist desire to exercise the gifts of the Spirit and the clericalist fear of lay prophecy have long contradicted one another within evangelical Christianity. The battle for the Bible from the sixteenth century to the eighteenth century was not over whether the matter of Scripture was truth without any mixture of error, but over whose interpretation of biblical truth could be considered. The battle for the right to interpret the Bible has been noted by historians but largely neglected by theologians, perhaps because male clericalists currently dominate that academic field.

Common New Testament Terms for Universal Christian Proclamation

The New Testament writers generally lay the privilege and responsibility for teaching the gospel upon Christians without particular restriction. A variety of terms are used within the New Testament to describe the act of teaching. Within the Great Commission relayed through the Gospel of Matthew, the germinal command is to “make disciples” (μαθητεύσατε, mathēteusate; or “make learners”), while the post-baptismal responsibility includes continual “teaching” (διδάσκοντες, didaskontes; Matt 28:19–20). The version of the commission found in the Gospel of Luke uses the terminology of “proclaim” (κηρυχθῆναι, kērychthēnai) and “witnesses” (μάρτυρες, martyres) (Luke 24:47–48). For the Apostle Paul, the instrumental means of salvation ordained by God is located in the act of “preaching” (κηρύσσοντος, kēryssontos), particularly the act of “speaking the good news” (εὐαγγελιζομένων, euangelizomenōn; Rom 10:14–15).[91] Three of these Greek terms deserve our immediate attention here. Among the apostles, Matthew links κηρύσσω (kēryssō) with διδάσκω (didaskō), while Luke and Paul employ κηρύσσω but prefer εὐαγγελίζω (euangelizō) when describing the whole Christian activity of gospel proclamation.[92]

First, consider the word group around the verb κηρύσσω (kēryssō), used in the Septuagint for the prophetic acts of proclaiming judgment and liberty (Joel 2:1; Isa 61:1; cf. Esth 6:9) and for Lady Wisdom proclaiming with a loud voice the benefits of wisdom (Prov 1:21, 8:1). In the New Testament, the verb is often linked with Christ and his gospel as the object. There is a notable difference between secular and Christian references to proclamation. For the church, “it is not the institution or the person to which importance is attached, but only the effective act of proclamation.”[93] Moreover, the New Testament’s “completely predominant concept of proclamation [is] as a process and event.”[94] The emphasis, in other words, is not on preaching by the occupant of a settled office but on the Christian community’s continual widespread activity of proclamation.

Second, consider the word group around the verb διδάσκω (didaskō) and the noun διδάσκαλος (didaskalos). In the Gospels, the noun almost always refers to Jesus. Warning the disciples against the human propensity for elitism, even among his disciples, Jesus locates himself in the unique office of “The Teacher” (διδάσκαλος, didaskalos; or ῥαββί, rhabbi). Below Jesus, all believers remain equally located by dominical command in a single class of “brothers and sisters” (Matt 23:8 CSB). The teaching performed by the apostles was centered upon the Lord Jesus and passed on to the church through the tradition of the New Testament. Against Roman Catholic attempts to restrict lay access to that written tradition, Evangelicals during the Reformation argued for the universal right of all Christians to have access to the biblical canon. The Apostle Paul commanded the church to engage continually in mutual teaching, for instance, in Col 3:16. Moisés Silva remarks here, “The kind of exhortation in review here is not restricted to the apostolic office; it is required of all members of the church.”[95] In the Pastoral Epistles, teaching must derive from the “faithful Word” and remain “healthy” in content, or, we might say, “orthodox.” The Pastorals also define an official responsibility for teaching, of which more below.

Third, consider the word group around the verb εὐαγγελίζω (euangelizō) and the noun εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion). The Septuagint used the terms to correlate the message of the gospel with the mission of the Messiah, particularly in Isa 61:1, which Jesus applied to himself (Luke 4:18). In the New Testament, Luke and Paul used the verb, while Mark, Matthew, and Paul preferred the noun. For Luke, the Greek phrase “κηρύσσων καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ” (kēryssōn kai euangelizomenos tēn basileian tou theou, Luke 8:1) gives us a comprehensive picture of the whole activity of Jesus. His whole life was proclamation of the Gospel,” the ushering in of the kingdom of God.[96] Paul used εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion) to indicate both the content of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (Rom 1:1–4; 1 Cor 15:1–7) and the act of proclaiming such (1 Cor 9:14, 18). Paul never placed a limit on which Christians could proclaim the gospel, but he was adamant its content be correctly conveyed (Gal 1:6–10).[97] Like Moses before him, Paul responded with unmitigated abandon regarding the office of proclamation: “What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice” (Phil 1:18). For Mark and Peter, rehearsing the narrative of the gospel brings the dynamic presence of Christ (Mark 1:14; 8:35; 10:29; 14:5; 1 Pet 1:12, 23–25). For Matthew, it is the church who “passes on this gospel.”[98]

In summary, the most common New Testament terms for proclamation—preaching, teaching, and evangelizing—do not generally restrict who may engage in such functions. The universal Christian office of proclamation has been reinforced in this review of the Great Commission, the gift of prophecy, and important terms for proclamation. Historically, Baptists recognized the truth of these claims and organized their churches accordingly. We now turn to the particular office of Christian proclamation.

The Elder’s Particular Office of Christian Proclamation

While all Christians must continuously engage in universal proclamation, as seen above, there is one biblical text which prompts us to recognize a particular office of authoritative Christian proclamation, and this text especially concerns women.[99] Several caveats must be offered. Firstly, other canonical texts influence our interpretation, but attention correctly focuses upon the primary text, 1 Tim 2:12.[100] Secondly, our concern here is not with a full definition of the office of the “elder” (aka “bishop,” and, loosely, “pastor”), but with one of his most important roles within that office.[101] Thirdly, the Danvers Statement summarizes our general position on the relations and roles of men and women, so we refer the reader to that statement for a placeholder discussion.[102] Finally, we are not interested in repeating but in building upon the excellent work done by other biblical and systematic theologians. Among others, we find the theological exegesis of Thomas D. Lea,[103] David S. Dockery,[104] and Craig L. Blomberg[105] particularly helpful.

Our contention is that 1 Timothy 2:12 limits the universal office of Christian proclamation so as to reserve authoritative proclamation regarding church dogma to the elder. This conclusion places us on what many refer to as the “complementarian” side of the evangelical spectrum. Where contemporary evangelicals who embrace a form of “complementarianism” find agreement, over against evangelicals who embrace “egalitarianism,” concerns the existence of an ecclesiological limitation. However, complementarians are not uniform in their description of that limitation. Complementarians typically agree that a woman may not serve in the office of the elder. Where complementarians disagree with one another concerns the extent and the nature of that limitation.

In the ESV, 1 Timothy 2:12 states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, didaskein de gynaiki ouk epitrepō oude authentein andros, all’ einai en hēsychia). The key disagreement between complementarians concerns whether the conjunction οὐδὲ (oude, “nor”) functions as a hendiadys or whether it distinguishes the activities. We accept the hendiadys for five reasons: First, the coupling of two or more terms to elucidate meaning was a common linguistic tactic in Hebrew, and Paul uses the tactic 11 times in the first 11 verses of 1 Tim 2.[106] Second, the coupling of “teaching” with “exercising authority” encapsulates Paul’s two primary descriptions of the role of the overseer or elder in the same letter (1 Tim 3:2; 5:17).[107] Third, the universal nature of teaching (διδάσκειν, didaskein) which scholars have discovered in the remainder of the New Testament corpus, summarized above, requires the teaching (διδάσκειν, didaskein) in 1 Tim 2:12 be qualified in some way, such as teaching with authority. If not, then the restrictive interpreters of 1 Tim 2:12 must explain why their interpretation does not introduce a logical contradiction into the biblical canon. Inerrancy extends to the theology in the canon.

Fourth, James as the leader of the church of Jerusalem conclusively voiced the church’s authoritative theological and moral dogmas (τὰ δόγματα, ta dogmata; Acts 16:4) once the controversy over the contradictory teachings of Paul and the Judaizers had been settled in congregational conference (Acts 15:13, 19; cf. Gal 2:9). Fifth, Paul earlier recognized women could speak as prophets during worship (1 Cor 11:5). His subsequent command, for the women prophets to cease from speaking and adopt a spirit of submission, comes during the orderly stage of the church’s worship after the spoken prophecies have already been commonly judged (1 Cor 14:29). At this stage, the church required the final judgment and proclamation by the church’s male leader (1 Cor 14:34).[108]

Because we accept the hendiadys in 1 Tim 2:12, we believe this passage limits the church office of teaching with dogmatic authority to qualified men elected as leaders. Thomas Lea, former Dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Seminary, largely agreed with this interpretation, although he restricted the leadership of a church to a single person. He wrote, “Teaching involved official doctrinal instruction in the Scriptures, and was a task delegated to the pastor-teacher.”[109] “The normative principle behind Paul’s directive is that the woman should not carry out the role of senior pastor. This does not amount to a prohibition against a woman’s teaching or against her ministry to men.”[110] Lea recognized differences between biblical church practices and those of today’s Protestant churches, even as he detected in the biblical text a “broad role for women in ministry.”[111]

David S. Dockery arrived at a similar interpretation regarding the ecclesiological contours of αὐθεντεῖν (authentein): “The treatment of ‘authority’ in v 12 might be interpreted not as an absolute prohibition of women speaking in any form in the church meeting, but as a repudiation disallowing them to function as authoritative teachers in the congregation.” “It seems plausible that the prohibition in this context is restricted to women having the position of the final authoritative public teacher in the assembly. Therefore, this is not an outright prohibition against women’s involvement in the church’s teaching ministry.”[112] After a careful study of the passages addressing the role of women in the church, Dockery concluded, “Ministries including certain leadership roles in worship, music, education (teaching in ecclesiastical or academic settings) or counseling do not pose a contradiction to the normative biblical principles.”[113]

This general interpretation raises the additional question of the nature of the elder’s exercise of teaching authority. The biblical text, of course, remains the norming norm of Christian dogmatics subsequent to the development of the biblical canon. The development of a dogmatic conclusion, moreover, is not the same thing as the authoritative proclamation of that conclusion. After the establishment of the New Testament church, prophets functioned as proclaimers of the word of God they had received from the apostles and the Spirit. Over against the mysterious activity of those who spoke in tongues (1 Cor 14:2), the prophet was defined by Paul as one who “speaks to people” with understanding for the purpose of “their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation” (1 Cor 14:3 CSB).

Today, the apostolic deposit is available in the New Testament canon. The interpreters of Scripture properly appeal to the Spirit for its proper perception. Today’s “prophets” likewise ought not function in a mysterious manner but with full cognitive understanding of the biblical text so that people may be strengthened, encouraged, and consoled by the word of God. If today’s prophets disagree stridently with one another, then the church must conference in the manner described in Acts 15 and 1 Cor 14. The elders are the teachers ultimately responsible for judging whether the teachings of various prophets correlate with the church’s dogmatically determined interpretation of the Word of God. (In a Baptist context, such dogmas may be found in a church’s covenant, confession, and church minutes.) According to our understanding, normative authority is retained by Scripture; prophetic speech from the biblical text may be voiced by Christian men, lay or clerical, and women; the congregation retains its dogmatic authority in determining between hotly controverted teachings; and the elders retain the responsibility of voicing proper biblical interpretation with dogmatic authority.

The Import of the Two Christian Offices
of Proclamation for Seminary Instruction

While this essay has centered upon the roles of women teachers in the world and the church, how does this interpretation relate to women as teachers within the seminary? We would encourage our seminary’s leaders to consider their policies a matter of prayerful wisdom, accounting for the several truths established above. Three particular truths come immediately to the fore: First, dogmatically speaking, a seminary is not a church, so the professor need not be an ordained elder. The accidental nature of the professor’s office and the accidental quality of the seminary vis-à-vis the churches ought never be forsaken. Second, for the sake of pedagogical example, we recognize a proper desire for professors to model all the offices in a local church, including the dogmatic teaching office of elders. Third, again for the sake of pedagogical example, we equally recognize a proper desire for professors to model all the offices in a local church, including the universal teaching of all Christians, inclusive of male and female lay theologians, based on the priesthood of all believers.

In conclusion, we suggest three or four possible routes for honoring the universal teaching of all Christians, including women, alongside the particular teaching of ordained men within the seminary curricula. Strictly speaking, the choice between these routes should be recognized as a matter of sanctified wisdom rather than as a matter of revealed necessity:

- Out of respect for the truth that all Christians, including all Christian women, are required by the Great Commission to proclaim biblical truth universally, women may teach any dogmatic field with the explicit understanding they do not teach as exemplars of eldership.

- Out of respect for the exemplary nature of the theological professor’s dogmatic proclamation as a mirror of the local church elder, women may be prohibited from teaching in certain dogmatic fields particularly redolent of a church elder.

- Out of respect for both the universal office of Christian proclamation and the particular office of Christian proclamation, women may teach some classes in a dogmatic field while only ordained men may teach others. Or, evocative of congregational dogmatic authority, a dogmatic class may require both male and female teachers.

A Note from Karen: As a woman in vocational ministry, I would like to speak to this discussion in a personal manner. My desire is to please the Lord and act in obedience to his Word. The issue of sexuality is important to the Lord, especially in that it is linked to the portrayal of the image of God (Gen 1:26–28). In the inaugural meeting of the Southwestern Seminary Society for Women in Scholarship, David Dockery recently answered an inquiry concerning 1 Tim 2. He noted that Paul refers back to creation as a basis for the teaching. When a New Testament teaching relies on the creation story as its foundation, then the teaching is not subject to culture, counter-culture, or sub-culture. It is a spiritually designed truth applicable in all settings and at all times.

Like many other women in ministry, I do not in any way want to dishonor the Lord and falsely portray him to the world. On the contrary, I cannot help but tell of him and how he has revealed himself to me through his word. Yet, dishonoring him can occur in two ways, by forcefully asserting my right to speak or, in contrast, by refusing to act on the call and gifting he has given me. We should lament how the church is divided when anyone, male or female, promotes themselves to a place of undue authority, and how the church is weakened when the gifts of the body are disregarded and thwarted!

We can approach the subject looking for an imaginary line that must not be crossed, but no legalistic prescriptions exist that can be formulated to fit every situation. It would be much easier to make hard-and-fast rules to apply across-the-board, for then we would not have to wrestle with the texts and prayerfully consider the context of the particular congregation or setting. But the Lord calls us to more.

Instead, we hear a call to seek the Lord together as brothers and sisters in Christ. He desires that we pray and seek him, dependent on the leadership, power, and fellowship of the Holy Spirit. It is with “fear and trembling” that we realize he is at work in us (Phil 2:1–13). Our desire is that he works through us to most effectively build up the church and reach the world with the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Strategic Importance of Ministry to Women Programs in Theological Education

Emily Dean, PhD & Tara Dew, EdD

Emily Dean is assistant professor of Ministry to Women at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Tara Dew is director of the Ministry Wives Certificate Program at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Rationale and Importance of Preparing Women for Ministry Leadership through Theological Training

A frequent question in theological education is, why should women pursue theological training? When God calls a woman to serve in ministry leadership, whether vocationally or voluntarily, preparation for service is an important element of that calling. Theological training is valuable for women in whatever calling God places on their lives, whether that be in the local church, on the mission field, in the parachurch organization, or in the home. Theological education provides women with the skills necessary to develop sound theology and ministry methodology that will prepare them to lead effectively in a variety of ministries, such as Bible teaching, mercy ministry, counseling ministry, disciple making, and cultural engagement. Perhaps the better question would be to ask why women would not want to pursue theological training. When God calls a woman to ministry leadership, whether as a full-time vocation or as a lay leader, she has a responsibility to prepare for whatever leadership opportunities God brings into her life.

The deeper discussion behind the value of theological training for women often stems from the broader conversation on complementarianism. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) collectively affirms that God calls men to the role of pastor, but the SBC also affirms the giftedness of women for service in the church.[1] A recent SBC resolution affirmed the dignity of women and their importance to ministry service.[2] Rather than concentrating on what God does not call women to do, the focus of the conversation needs to remain on what women currently are doing and can do to serve the kingdom of Jesus. Women throughout the SBC give valuable leadership as church staff members, pastors’ wives, denominational leaders, lay church leaders, parachurch leaders, missionaries, and itinerant Bible teachers. While women have served as messengers to the annual SBC convention for over one hundred years,[3] an increasing number of women are even beginning to serve in key roles at the national level in the SBC.[4]

The conversation of how women can and do lead needs to remain at the forefront so that younger women can see how God is using complementarian women for kingdom service. Thus ministries like Women & Work and the SBC Women’s Leadership Network were born.[5] These ministries allow women to understand what other women are doing in ministry leadership and realize what opportunities may be available to them. In a recent “Ministry to Women” class discussion on whether women viewed themselves as leaders, the consensus was that those who were serving in a paid ministry position were more likely to view themselves as leaders than those who were serving in a volunteer capacity. This perception is not surprising, considering that more women are college-educated and entering the workforce than in previous decades. With over half of college graduates and now over half of the college-educated workforce being female,[6] younger women have an increasing expectation of entering the paid workforce upon graduation. Therefore, women called to ministry are asking questions about what job opportunities are available to them. Yet an important consideration for women is that opportunities for ministry leadership are not limited to a paid ministry position.

Giving leadership is much bigger than holding a position or a title. Leadership, in a broad sense, includes the influence that we have on others.[7] While ministry leadership may include a full-time, paid staff position, many smaller churches cannot include in their budgets multiple full-time staff positions and may not even be able to have a full-time pastor. In a denomination of churches where the majority have memberships of 250 or less,[8] bi-vocational ministry often occurs among both men and women in SBC churches. Yet the need exists for theological training, regardless of whether ministry leadership occurs in a paid position or not.

As women begin to broaden their understanding of how God gives them influence in each area of their lives, they will view themselves as leaders in their homes, their churches, and their communities. They will begin to see how God can use them in ministry leadership and recognize the need for theological training. As more women are receiving undergraduate education, pursuing graduate and post-graduate training is a natural consideration for women. Likewise, SBC seminaries have seen growth in the number of female students.[9] Based on the previous data mentioned, the trend of increasing female enrollment in theological education programs is likely to continue. Thankfully, the flexibility and accessibility of distance education provide greater opportunities for women to pursue theological education. Women should take advantage of every opportunity available to them to prepare for ministry leadership in whatever capacity God calls them.

The Importance of Ministry to Women Programs in Seminaries and other Christian Institutions of Higher Education

The Purpose of Ministry to Women

In seeking to discover the importance of training in ministry to women, one might ask why a ministry to women in the local church would be necessary. Considering that women comprise over half of the evangelical protestant community,[10] ministry specific to women is an essential component of local church ministry. With so many women in weekly church attendance, the potential for women to give and receive ministry is immeasurable. Women-only spaces in the church can provide ministry opportunities that likely would not occur otherwise. Women are relational by nature and naturally connect with other women. They encounter shared experiences unique to womanhood, such as being a wife, being a mother, having a miscarriage, dealing with emotional cycles, or being a woman in the workplace. Women have a unique opportunity to reach other women through those shared experiences.[11]

Women-only spaces also provide women with the freedom to learn, freedom to share, and freedom to lead.[12] Women can speak freely in a gender-specific environment. They can experience the openness to ask questions and grow in a way that they might not feel comfortable in a mixed-gender setting. Women can develop and use their gifts for ministry in leading other women. Women-only spaces offer a safe place for women to share life’s experiences, to grow as a Christian, and to develop the gifts that God has given to them for use in His kingdom.

The Biblical Basis of Ministry to Women

Ministry to women is a natural outflow of God’s purpose for women. Women have the unique ability and opportunity to speak into the lives of women in a way that only another woman could. The example of Mary and Elizabeth in Luke 1 reminds us that women understand the particular needs of other women and can provide encouragement and support to one another in life’s challenges.

Women also need godly mentors. Naomi and Ruth provide an example of mutual care and respect among women in Ruth 1. These women learned from one another during a challenging season of life. Mentoring should be a natural result of women developing friendships with one another and walking together through the various seasons of life. While mentoring women can encompass a variety of subjects, such as life skills or job skills, disciple making is a more strategic subset of mentoring. Discipling is mentoring for the purpose of teaching women to follow Jesus.

Titus 2 provides insight into the necessity of women-only spaces in the church. In Titus 2, women are called to disciple younger women. While some women may think that they need to reach a certain age to qualify as a disciple maker, there is not an age requirement to disciple a younger woman. Whoever is younger can be discipled. Discipling other women is a biblical mandate for women, and efforts to foster disciple making among women should be encouraged in each local church. As women are discipled, they will begin to reach out to their family, friends, and neighbors. Through those outreach efforts, the church will naturally grow.

The Historical Basis of Ministry to Women in the SBC

Formal ministry to women in SBC churches initially began as a grass-roots mission movement that led to the development of the Women’s Missionary Union (WMU). For over a century, the primary focus of ministry to women centered on WMU groups in many SBC churches. Women faithfully served as supporters of missionaries both locally and abroad, and they actively participated in mission opportunities in their communities. The WMU continues to exist as an auxiliary of the SBC and has for its purpose to pray for missions, engage in mission action and witnessing, learn about missions, support missions, develop spiritually toward a missions lifestyle, and participate in the work of the church and denomination.[13]

In the 1980s and 1990s, another grassroots movement began among women that led to the women’s ministry movement. While women wanted to continue involvement in mission service, they also wanted more opportunities for in-depth Bible study and prayer ministry. A broader scope of ministry to women developed that included Bible study ministries, prayer ministries, special events ministries, and service ministries. The Southern Baptist Convention formally supported the movement through the development of the Women’s Enrichment Ministry division of the Baptist Sunday School Board (now LifeWay Christian Resources).[14]

Most recently, a broader focus on a holistic view of ministry to women has been occurring among many SBC churches.[15] Ministry to women is a movement beyond emphasizing programs to focusing on ministering to the whole woman. Ministry to women is “not simply specific ministry programs but also an ongoing flow of ministry happening in diverse ways among women in local church congregations.”[16] Ministry to women is about the whole scope of how women are being ministered to through the local church. With a broader emphasis on ministry to the whole woman, an even greater need exists for quality theological training in effective ministry to women.

The Importance of Theological Training in Ministry to Women

Women have a played a strategic role in Southern Baptist Churches from the SBC’s early days, and theological training in ministry to women has been an emphasis in seminaries for over a century The initial goals of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary upon its founding in 1917 included: “to equip all types of religious leaders for efficient service, whether as pastors, missionaries, evangelists, church and Sunday school workers, gospel singers, women and young people’s leaders [emphasis added], financial secretaries, deacons and pastors’ helpers.”[17] While ministry methodology may have changed in the last one hundred years, the need for sound theological training in preparation for ministry to women at the college and seminary level remains the same.

Theological training in ministry to women is valuable in whatever ministry context the Lord might provide, whether that be at a crisis pregnancy center, a local church women’s Bible study, or a brothel in Southeast Asia. In some regions of the world, only women are allowed to converse with other women. Therefore, understanding how to minister specifically to women is a necessity not only in those contexts but anywhere women might gather.

Women need to know God’s word to be able to have theological conversations within their homes, their families, their churches, and their communities. In addition, women need the tools necessary to develop resources specifically for women to teach them how to have these theological conversations. One of the recommendations from an SBC Women’s Advisory Council was to create more training resources on evangelism specific to women.[18] Theological training can offer the skills needed for women to accurately teach the word of God, develop trustworthy resources, and effectively minister to the women God brings into their lives. Ministry to women programs in seminaries and institutions of Christian higher education provide inestimable value to the kingdom of God as the unique ministry needs of women are considered and women prepare to engage in ministry leadership.

The Importance of Programs for Ministry Wives

Another substantial group of women in ministry leadership who need but generally lack theological training is pastors’ wives. On higher education campuses, these are the women who are not often students themselves yet are working hard to put their husbands through seminary. Some might be stay-at-home mothers, while others are working outside the home to provide for their families. While in seminary, one spouse noted a common sentiment: “Our husbands were getting an education on how to become ministers while we were left to wonder how we fit into the equation.”[19]

Yet upon leaving seminary, pastors’ wives often find themselves in a church with many expectations. These churches expect a “two for one” deal: when they hire the pastor, they also get the pastor’s wife. Without any previous theological training or experience, however, pastors’ wives find themselves in a unique position. They do not have a designated job description, yet they are held to certain expectations. In addition, the pastor’s wife is not an employee of the church, yet she does perform many essential ministry responsibilities. “Few groups out there are as missionally essential and as massively overlooked as pastors’ wives. The gal married to your shepherd finds herself in a unique and difficult place.”[20]

When examining Scripture, one does not find the title “pastor’s wife.” There are no biblical requirements for this position, outside of a few general character traits. Her specific involvement, her general ministry activities, and the expectations that churches so often have for them are listed nowhere in Scripture. Yet, the pressures that they experience are very real and felt. This can lead to many insecurities, depression, and anxiety in pastors’ wives because they have received very little training for all that they are expected to do.

But more important than her roles in the church, the pastor’s wife’s relationship and support of her pastor-husband is extremely influential to his success or his detriment in ministry. Jeana Floyd stated, “The definition of survival in ministry can be relative—depending on where you are and how you feel about ministry. One thing is for sure: your survival and the way you feel about ministry are critical to your husband’s success. After 30-plus years in ministry, I have observed that rarely is a minister successful in ministry when his wife is miserable.”[21] Similarly, another author commented that “no one person in the church is more influential in making the pastor a success—or a resounding failure—than she.”[22] It has been noted that half of all the couples who leave the ministry prematurely leave because of the wife’s discontentment or bitterness.[23]

Seminaries themselves often do not understand how vital training is for the spouse and for the effectiveness of their ministry together. For many years, the emphasis has been on training men who are called to ministry. This pedagogical priority must not cease. However, churches and denominations must encourage those that they send to seminary to seek classes and programs for their wives’ theological training as well. Likewise, seminaries must recognize these spouses’ needs and prioritize them as well. These are the natural settings where a wife can be prepared with confidence, both personally and professionally, to minister alongside her husband. If ministries flourish, both the pastor and his wife must be prepared with theological education so that they can adjust to the ministry's demands and needs they will find themselves in.

Rising up to meet this need, all six Southern Baptist seminaries now offer at least one class for ministers’ wives. Over half offer full certificates for ministers’ wives, focusing on theological and biblical foundations. Most of these classes are offered residentially, though New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary also offer online options for those pastors’ wives already serving in churches.

However, survey research of recent SBC graduates showed that very few spouses took advantage of these classes while their husbands were in seminary.[24] Even though their husbands received theological training, the majority of the spouses did not. Over half of the pastors’ wives surveyed said that they were trained by women’s Bible studies. About a third noted that they received on-the-job training from their pastor-husband. Some did receive a college or seminary degree, yet only 15% of surveyed pastors’ wives took any certificate courses that had been offered while their husbands were in school. One focus group participant noted, “I wasn’t trained. . . . I felt like I was kind of thrown into it, and this is what I’m supposed to be because God called me to marry this man.” Those whose husbands had attended seminary, however, responded that they were more prepared to be a pastor’s wife than those whose husbands did not receive theological training at one of the SBC seminaries.

Despite little to no theological training, these surveyed pastors’ wives are serving in churches, alongside their pastor-husband, in essential roles. The majority of the pastors’ wives that were surveyed minister through hospitality, teaching, Vacation Bible School, women’s ministry, and children’s ministries. Over a third lead small groups, event planning, discipleship classes, and serve in the nursery. Most of the survey respondents spend at least 10 hours a week serving their churches in these ways—all while juggling other part-time or full-time jobs and raising children.

When asked specifically about what they were most unprepared for in ministry, one pastor’s wife commented, “All of it! I honestly wasn’t prepared for anything.” Over and over on the surveys, the pastors’ wives commented on the need for more training, more equipping, and practical classes tailored just for them. Theological training on how to study the Bible is vitally important for these ladies but so is practical equipping on foundational issues like: (1) how to love their husbands through discouragement, (2) how to balance family time and the ministry, (3) how to handle church expectations on the pastor’s wife, (4) how to make friends and deal with loneliness, (5) how to deal with difficult church members or conflict, (6) how to counsel and teach biblically, (7) how to do evangelism or mission work, and (8) how to deal with finances.

Over and over on the surveys, pastors’ wives not only shared what they wished they had learned, but they also encouraged current students to take advantage of these classes for ministry wives while their husbands were in seminary. One wife encouraged, “Take advantage of every class offered. I wish I had.” Another said, “I would love if I would have attended more women’s classes while my husband attended class.” Finally, one pastor’s wife shared, “I think the certificate for the minister’s wife should be required of all graduating pastors for their wives to participate.” Without a doubt, pastors’ wives wish they had taken advantage of more training while their husbands were at seminary. Now that they are serving, they see the need for theological training all the more.

Since the research shows that many pastors’ wives serve their churches in a variety of essential capacities, it is imperative that both the pastor and his wife are equipped and trained through both formal and informal avenues. It can no longer be believed that only the pastor is called to the ministry. It is evident that his wife serves greatly alongside him, and she must be prepared for the expectations and the responsibilities placed upon her in church ministry. This preparation and support could include, but is definitely not limited to, certificate classes specifically for them at the seminaries.

Our institutions of higher learning must champion the classes provided for spouses of ministers. Many pastors’ wives have been informally trained for ministry, lacking formal preparation by way of classes or certificate programs. Seminaries should be the first to reconcile this desire, as they are the training and equipping grounds for the pastors. It is important that seminaries offer accessible and affordable classes to student wives. Due to the financial pressures that seminary couples often find themselves in, these classes must be highly cost-effective, if not free. Perhaps even scholarships could be raised specifically for women training to be pastors’ wives, affording them the opportunity to take classes and be trained. In addition to the financial pressures that must be avoided, scheduling these classes at a time when the student wives can attend is vital. Some of the pastors’ wives on the survey and in the focus groups expressed how they would have attended classes if they had been offered during the day with childcare, so it would not take away from their family time in the evenings. Others desired for the classes to be at night, almost in a “Ladies Night Out” or “Moms Night Out” format. Childcare could be offered at that time as well, so they could attend if their spouses could not keep the kids. This also would allow student wives who are working during the day to attend evening classes. Husbands, during their New Student Orientation at seminary, need to be told about the importance of these classes for their spouses, and they should be encouraged to help their wives attend them in whatever ways possible.

In addition to seminary classes, pastors’ wives also have requested online classes that could be accessed even after graduation. Many of them did not realize what training they would need or require until they were in ministry. Therefore, they wish there were practical classes available that they could access for help and training even after their time in seminary.

Concluding Remarks on the Importance of Theological Training for Women

Today, many women live with too small a view of themselves and their purpose.[25] There is often too much focus on what women cannot do in a church, rather than how they can use their gifts and passions to serve Christ and build his kingdom. Theological training for women, both as students and spouses of students, is critical for the church to be fully functioning as the body of Christ. If one part is not flourishing, then the whole body suffers. Women have played a critical role throughout history and in the SBC. Whether influencing others in the workplace, church, or in the home, women hold important perspectives that must be cherished and skills that must be trained. For such a time as now, theological training for women must continue to be a priority in our seminaries and institutions of higher education.

A Discussion on Women in Ministry
in the Southern Baptist Convention

At the 2019 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, the Cooperative Program stage hosted a panel discussion on women in ministry. Moderated by Amy Whitfield, the panelists were Kathy Litton, director of Planter Spouse Development at the North American Mission Board; Jeana Floyd, wife of SBC Executive Committee President and CEO Ronnie Floyd; and Katie McCoy, assistant professor of theology in Women’s Studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The following is an edited transcript of their discussion.

Amy Whitfield: Last year (2018) marked the 100th anniversary of women as messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). At the Convention’s annual meeting in Dallas, we passed a resolution, “On the Dignity and Worth of Women.” That statement called upon women “to serve in diverse capacities to advance the gospel.” What does that look like in day-to-day life, and how do you see Southern Baptist women serving in a wide range of ministry roles?

Kathy Litton: At the North American Mission Board (NAMB), one of our denominational strategies is planting churches. I see a generation of planter spouses who are going to extremely lost cities with very anti-Christian or secular cultures, and planting churches. They sacrifice as they go to difficult places and are involved in a different way than at traditional churches. The church planter’s wife participates in strategy, leadership development, and the evangelism program. She is all in. This is a courageous, committed generation.

Jeana Floyd: I speak from the viewpoint of a pastor’s wife. At our previous ministry, Cross Church in Northwest Arkansas, we had wonderful women on our staff in very critical positions. I also had the opportunity to mentor our staff wives, seeing those women not only walk alongside their husbands but also in their various fields inside and outside the church, to fulfill a ministry of leadership in whatever God had called them to do.

Katie McCoy: At Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS), we see women launch into a variety of different ministries—overseas mission work, organizational service and leadership, advocacy, denominational life, girls’ and women’s ministers, discipleship, and evangelism. We also have women who go on to do further study and become scholars and authorities in their fields. We get to see women at the preparation stage before they launch.

AW: Kathy, women are doing a lot of things in our churches and ministries. When we consider the contributions of women throughout the years, this is not new. We’ve had women throughout the history of the SBC, with the most familiar being Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong. Who are some other women who have contributed to our collective efforts?

KL: Another great missionary is Bertha Smith, who not only made a tremendous impact on the mission field but came back to the United States, where her voice was very powerful. Kay Arthur has also made a great contribution, and Kay Warren is an imprint of a leader that has spoken into many issues using her life as a platform. We stand on the shoulders of many generations that have served globally, and we are grateful for the history that we have.

AW: Jeana, you wrote the book 10 Things Every Minister’s Wife Needs to Know. One chapter is titled “Remember Who You Are,” a concept that applies to women in any role. How is that advice key to women who are serving?

JF: There is a quote from Sacred Influence by Gary Thomas that says: “God, not your marital status or the condition of your marriage, defines your life.”[1] I think when you realize that God created you individually with giftedness and you use that, he can use you in so many ways. Recognizing your gifts is important. My gifts are very different than my husband’s, but I think we make a good combination of giftedness. I see through the years how God places men and women together for the benefit of both so that they can carry out his purpose, one helping the other in each of those areas. Be available to God for him to use your giftedness as he created you individually, and just press forward as fast and hard as you can.

AW: Katie, when we look at Scripture, what do we see about how God has designed women and how he uses them?

KM: If we look at the ministries of women in the New Testament church in the book of Acts and the Epistles, and then look forward to church history, we can see how the ministries that women were involved in led to the explosive growth of the church. That’s not at all to dismiss the priority of the preached word and the role of the pastor. It is to say that the church encompassed the entire congregation, and every member was given a ministry. They fulfilled the ministry in the body, and they did the exact things that led to the explosive growth of the church, such as hospitality, discipleship and evangelism, caring for the sick, and serving the poor. Those were dynamic witnesses to a pagan culture, turning it completely upside down.

AW: Kathy, we’ve seen explosive growth in church planting over the last five to ten years. Women are involved in church planting everywhere. What are you seeing in this new movement, and in new pathways to serve?

KL: We use the term “planting couple” at NAMB. It’s definitely such a risky, sacrificial role that a planter’s wife has to be fully in on it, bearing the weight of more leadership because of being short-staffed and slim in resources. Maybe she is the wage earner providing the income to help with the funding. I have seen planters’ wives be dentists, psychologists, moms of five kids, and homeschooling mothers. The roles are across the board. But ultimately, they are there to advance the gospel, no matter what role they’re playing. It is a shared responsibility in more ways than I’ve seen in many church settings.

AW: Jeana, you have been in one place over thirty years, and you have now transitioned to a new place of ministry. What advice do you have for women who may be called to new service?

JF: I never imagined that God would call us to something very different, not just moving us to another church but to another profession. It became a soul-searching question of things that we have taught our staff all these years, and that is the act of obedience and willingness. It becomes a deep heart issue, whether you rest where you are comfortable or whether you are willing to follow the call of God to do something totally new, totally different, and totally unexpected. You can never get beyond being willing to follow what God wants you to do.

AW: Katie, you are on faculty at Southwestern Seminary. The mission given by the SBC to our theological seminaries is to “prepare God-called men and women for vocational service in Baptist churches and in other Christian ministries throughout the world through programs of spiritual development, theological studies, and practical preparation in ministry.” While that mission lists both men and women, we often don’t think about how it applies to women. What is the benefit of theological education for women, and how are our institutions preparing women for the mission of God?

KM: The benefit of theological education for women is that the Great Commission is for every believer, male and female. This means that every believer needs to be equipped to teach everything that the Lord has commanded us. We need to have all that we can in our arsenal to move the church forward. Every SBC seminary is doing incredible work for women in this day and age. I see women come who may have done a few Bible studies or read a few books, but have never taken the plunge into considering doctrine and theology. But the more rich a woman’s theological education is, and the more we invest in that, we see a principle work out similarly to economic investments in women. Whatever you give a woman, she pays it forward into the next generation, and it multiplies in one way or another.

AW: There has been ongoing discussion about the role of women in the local church. The BFM articulates, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Is there a legitimate reason for concern that Southern Baptist women have a collective desire to push back against that doctrinal expression or to embrace new positions?

KM: Every generation has to wrestle with this question of what Scripture says to women in the church. This conversation is so valuable because it causes us to go back to the basics of why we believe what we believe and how we got there. Unless we have that dialogue, all we are going for is conformity. Conformity is fragile, but community agreement is strong and can withstand cultural changes.

KL: As someone who lived through the Conservative Resurgence, this issue was part and parcel of that struggle, when we put the stake in the ground about what we believe about this. Many women who didn’t want to be a part of that left and went to places where they might become senior pastors. I would just say that from my experience, I don’t find women today in the SBC preoccupied with wanting to be a senior pastor. They are very busy serving in a multitude of places that are worthy.

In the past few years, there have been spaces opening up that women hadn’t been participating in before. We have room for more progress to have women’s voices in our denomination and in local churches. I think we are working toward health. But we are making some dangerous assumptions when we begin to assign intentions to other people. When we assign false intentions to women, it’s unfair, and sometimes it’s slanderous. Not every woman that speaks wants to be a pastor, and we shouldn’t believe that about them.

KM: In our complementarianism, we often focus on the role of women, but we don’t often talk about the responsibility of our brothers. Sometimes women are just looking for outlets. If they don’t find it in the church, they are going to find it somewhere else. They’re gifted. They’re called. They are servants of God. One of the things that can be a valuable part of this conversation is for our brothers and our pastors to have candid conversations about on-ramps and opportunities for service. Are we giving those to women in our venues?

KL: There are more men advocating for women. That’s very encouraging, and they see their organizations become more valuable with women on the team. It’s not tokenism; we are adding more value to the kingdom of God when women are invited to participate.

AW: Can you share a final word of encouragement for women in ministry?

KL: Life is stewardship, no matter what your role is. I want my life to flame out for the gospel and to represent the glory of God on this planet. God will decide where he wants to put my hands to work on this planet, and I want to rest in that.

JF: After leaving our church of almost 33 years, what came to be a common thread and what we heard from people who had been with us through the long haul was the importance of faithfulness and consistency.

KM: Your mind matters. Read, wrestle, absorb, and be in conversation with others about what you believe because your mind really does matter. A few years of preparation is worth a lifetime of impact.

Book Reviews

The Brain, the Mind, and the Person Within: The Enduring Mystery of the Soul. By Mark Cosgrove. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2018. 176 pages. Paperback, $18.99.

Mark Cosgrove is professor and chairman of the psychology department at Taylor University in Upland Indiana. He has authored numerous books with The Brain, the Mind, and the Person Within as his latest. Cosgrove structures this book in 10 separate chapters, each with a similar layout, giving a brief example at the beginning, offering information on the neuroscience and the brain, providing test cases from science, noting “persons of interest” who fit with the chapter theme, and providing two book recommendations.

Chapter 1 introduces the overall work, focusing on the nature of the brain and the person within the brain, which he considers to be a separate entity of sorts though nearly inseparable (12). His key point that governs the overall thesis is found here, saying, “to not view the human brain and experimental data with personhood in view, is a self-imposed poverty of the intellect and greatly limiting in ways that can never help us see the totality of what human beings and their brains are all about.” It is personhood, beyond the matter of the brain, that is always to be kept in view for Cosgrove. No amount of scientific observation about the brain can fully explain the person. To allow science to attempt to answer all the questions about human nature is to pay homage to the false god of scientism (19). As he will say later, and repeat in various forms throughout, “personhood needs to be a guide in neuroscientific theory and research” (69).

Chapter 2 opens by insisting that, “I am myself, and I am, in important ways, also my brain” (25). So, despite the reality that humans are more than their brains, they are never less than their brains. Chapter 3 continues this content trend, explaining aspects of the brain and raising potential problems for reductive physicalist views that see the person as nothing more than matter. For example, if Shakespeare’s brain matter is the same as others, why was he more gifted than others (53)? Or why was Einstein smarter than others?

Chapter 4 introduces the “hard problem” in neuroscience. Why and how does the physical brain give rise to non-physical subjective feelings (61)? He naturally dismisses any form of physicalism as a sufficient answer and even rejects emergent answers as merely “labeling, not explaining the problem” (64). Only a view that posits an immaterial person can sufficiently explain the reason that humans have subjective thoughts that are non-material. Chapter 5 follows with a similarly hard problem, considering free will. He argues against materialistic determinism because it only accounts for the parts and not the whole (i.e., the person) (80). Ultimately, he thinks, “we are largely determined, but free when it counts” (84). Fundamentally, humans are human precisely because they can rise above materialistic determinism (85). Chapter 6 explores religious experience and determines that there cannot be one location in the brain that is dubbed as “religious”—it requires the entire brain. Chapter 7 defends the personhood of all humans, no matter how physically or mentally damaged they may be, because of their role as image-bearers. Humans have a declared value from God that transcends function. Chapter 8 offers insight into future neuroscience technologies, the potential to re-create the human brain, and the ethical implications. Chapter 9 considers the aging and death of the brain, and chapter 10 closes with the continued reminder of Cosgrove’s most cherished points. We must think top-down and not just bottom-up when it comes to the brain, allowing the whole of the person to guide our understanding of its material pieces. It also must be remembered at all times that personhood is fundamental to understanding the human brain (164–65).

With the overall content of the work in view, I must confess several pitfalls that manifest throughout the book. First, and most foremost, is his lack of clarity on the nature of the human person. While the subtitle suggests a development of what exactly the “soul is” by noting “the enduring mystery of the soul,” unfortunately, the soul is left as just that—a mystery. He frequently makes dogmatic claims about its nature and yet never provides a firm definition or defense. He does distinguish between the “you” (i.e., the person that exists in an immaterial realm of the mind) and the mere matter of the brain, saying, “you and your brain are one, a mysterious unity, a partnership of spirit and dust” (26). Though beyond this notion, and an overt denial of “emergent” properties, not much else is clear. At one point, it appears he dubs the immaterial personhood as merely “declared value” or personhood by divine fiat (113). However, it remains unclear whether this is how he would define the soul/personhood. Despite the lack of clarity, he assumes his vague version of dualism is the Christian position. He states, “those who believe in God say human beings are a union of brain matter and spirit from God” (15). One might wonder if he is familiar with the literature on the topic since there are even various versions of dualism, but he vaguely affirms his awareness when he says, “an accurate explanation defies our labels of dualism, monism, nonreductive materialism, interacting dualism, duality without dualism, and more” (38). Second, and in a potentially similar vein, is the lack of source material and references throughout the work. While his intended goal is not to produce a thoroughly academic work, most of the information is rarely cited, making it difficult to research further outside the book itself to validate claims and pursue curiosity.

Despite the challenges I find with Cosgrove’s book, there are multiple benefits. First, it is very easy to read. At no point is it dull or too scholarly. For example, he does an excellent job of taking a vast array of scientific findings and explaining them at a beginner’s level. For anyone interested in understanding the contemporary state of neuroscience with no background in the field, this is a good place to start. Second, he continually offers test cases for each chapter in science that illustrate his point. These are all interesting and unique stories that offer color to his work that many other introductions lack. Third, he covers a wide array of topics that should be valuable for anyone interested in the overall topic of the human person.

With these in mind, would I recommend the book? I think so, depending on the audience and expectations. For those interested in a beginner’s guide from a Christian perspective that addresses advances in neuroscience, this is a good resource if paired with other more rigorous works. However, if someone is looking for a more advanced work, this is definitely not it. And if someone is interested in philosophical or theological reflection on the human person and the “soul,” they will certainly be disappointed.

- Jordan L. Steffaniak,
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

The Care of Souls: Cultivating a Pastor’s Heart. By Harold L. Senkbeil. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019. xvi + 290 pages. Hardcover, $21.99.

The Care of Souls is a different kind of pastoral ministry book. Senkbeil is not writing a “how-to” manual on pastoral work, yet the volume is immensely practical. He is not prescribing a particular method for pastoral work, though he passionately defends a unique vision for the work of a pastor. Above all, The Care of Souls clarifies the task of pastoral ministry and provides pastors with a set of tools to accomplish the task before them. The result is a book that can speak truth into a culture of pastoral ministry often distracted by the peripheral activities of pastoral work. Senkbeil offers a beautiful and biblical clarion call for pastors to work as the representatives of Christ, who cares for and cures the souls of his beloved.

Rather than begin this book on pastoral ministry in the pulpit, pastors study, or hospital room, Harold Senkbeil begins his description of the pastoral craft in the fields of his father’s farm. In this fecund setting, he introduces readers to the concept of habitus—daily work done for consistent care and cultivation. Senkbeil’s work, like his own life, moves far beyond his birthplace in west Minnesota, yet the lessons he learned stay with him and with the readers of The Care of Souls. The agricultural metaphors used throughout the work impress upon the reader that pastoral work involves labor as long and hard as on a farm and even more rewarding.

Readers should be aware that Senkbeil assumes the uniquely Lutheran view of consubstantiation, and this understanding of Jesus’s presence in the elements of communion may seem strange to readers outside of his denominational tradition. Some pastors from a Baptistic tradition may find particular difficulty in applying some of Senkbeil’s method for soul care as he clearly intends for pastors to offer communion outside of the congregational gathering (51). Pastors uncomfortable with offering communion in such a way can find in The Care of Souls a challenge to examine the role communion plays in their pastoral work.

While Senkbeil’s approach comes from a distinctly Lutheran perspective, the habitus he prescribes for pastors transcends denominational boundaries and is useful for all those engaged in the ministry of the gospel. The Care of Souls has a broad denominational application because it anchors soul care in the ministry of God's Word, arguing that only the Scriptures provide Christians with adequate guidance for life and ministry (41). Along with his admonishment to root pastoral ministry in Scripture, Senkbeil encourages pastors to fight the growing trend of bending biblical interpretation to cultural expectations. He argues, “Evolving cultural trends must not position the Bible; rather, the Bible positions each changing culture in turn” (47).

The distinguishing feature of Senkbeil’s work is his dogged focus on pastoral ministry. He is not borrowing a methodology from another discipline such as psychology or business leadership and applying it to pastoral ministry. Instead, Senkbeil heralds the value of pastoral ministry that fully embraces the need and calling of pastoral work. Senkbeil warns his readers against becoming “moral policemen” (168), therapists (180), or CEOs (8). He pleads with pastors to identify the central mission of their craft in a way unique to their calling: “We are genuine physicians for souls—embodied souls, to be sure, but souls nonetheless” (169).

The agricultural metaphors used throughout the work fit well with the timeless methods of pastoral ministry Senkbeil advocates. Against a growing trend to measure every aspect of ministry Senkbeil warns that “spiritual ministry by definition can’t be measured” (115). The habitus Senkbeil prescribes to his readers is as earthy and organic as his agricultural metaphors. There is nothing revolutionary in The Care of Souls; in place of novelty, Senkbeil gives us substance and biblical truth. Pastoral ministry does not need to reinvention; it needs to be reinvigorated by returning to the simple but profound practices that God has charged his servants to perform for two millennia.

The Care of Souls is a beautiful gift to pastors and—because it serves to strengthen her servants—a gift to the church. Those who read The Care of Souls will be challenged to understand that pastoral ministry is not a methodology to be followed or a data set to be measured. Senkbeil cuts to the core of the pastoral task: “We are, in a very real sense, only channels or conduits for the love of Christ that enfolds us, impels us and compels us for faithful work in service of the Great Shepherd who has laid down his life for us all” (121).

- Cory Barnes,
Shorter University, Rome, Georgia

To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story. By Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019. xix + 440 pages. Hardcover, $45.00.

Jennifer Knust, professor of religious studies at Duke University, and Tommy Wasserman, professor of biblical studies at Ansgar Teologiske Høgskole in Norway, combine their historical (Knust) and textual (Wasserman) expertise in this impressive work of scholarship on the pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11). The book is not a polemic for or against the passage (its non-Johannine and supplementary nature is assumed) but rather a window into “the kaleidoscopic and ever-changing character of human communities and the stories they tell” (12). Focusing on one of the two largest problems of the NT text (the other is the ending of Mark), the authors tell a history of the Gospels’ transmission that is messier than most might think.

Chapter 1 is on the story’s role in the rise of critical editions of the Greek NT and its fascination to both historical Jesus and feminist scholars, who see in it, respectively, as an authentic controversy story and a repudiation of patriarchism; this latter quality could have invited the passage’s suppression, according to some feminist scholars. In chapter 2, the authors discuss the story as related to second- and third-century Gospel book production. The story was important even if it was not associated with John at first; early Christians attempted to copy texts carefully even without institutional mechanisms to control the content of certain books; the main actors were scribes who merely copied texts, editors who improved them, and readers who shared them with critical reading groups; extracanonical Jesus traditions remained important and authoritative for many Christian writers in the period. The authors’ conclusion is that the “pericope adulterae was a beloved story; few (if any?) knew it from John, but Christian audiences regarded it as sacred anyway” (50).

Chapters 3 and 4 are on the question, “Was the Pericope Aduterae Suppressed?” The authors examine a great amount of documentary evidence, including general hostility against deletions (such as Marcion’s), scribal habits, and correctors who prevented deletions, to show that deletion or suppression of the story, while initially appealing, fails to convince. Additionally, the lasting popularity of other stories of sinful women suggests that the story would not have been disturbing enough to provoke its widespread suppression. Knust and Wasserman view favorably Chris Keith’s argument that the “astute interpolator” who inserted the passage into its traditional place in John “sought, and arguably achieved, both a thematic and technical unity when he or she made this insertion” (94). Contrary to modern notions of publication and copyright, the addition of the passage to John “remains consistent with the approach adopted by many of the earliest Christians toward the gospel message” (95).

Chapter 5 takes for its title the words of Didymus the Blind of Alexandria, that “in certain Gospels” a story appeared which sounds close to the one in question. The uniqueness of this expression for Didymus indicates that the story was not present in one of the four canonical Gospels. Interestingly, on a related passage, Mark 16:9–20, Eusebius’s work To Marinus indicates a preference for including, not excluding, a passage when a conflict in the manuscript evidence arises (194). This light from Eusebius seems different from most presentations of his testimony since he neglected to include those verses in his canon tables.

Chapter 6 is on the story in the Latin West beginning with Ambrose, the Vulgate, Jerome, and famous bilingual Codex Bezae. The story is firmly attested in the fourth century in Rome, Gaul, and Spain. Knust and Wasserman point out that the Old Latin and Jerome’s later translation employ wording that “corresponds to the Greek text in the majority of manuscripts” (217). Not only this, but Ambrose also uses Latin wording that corresponds to the wording preferred by a later Greek recension (f^35), generally thought to derive from the eleventh century. “This peculiar reading suggests that an expansion also known in Greek texts was current in the West in the fourth century and continued to circulate” (218). Regardless of the relative abundance of Latin sources and the absence of early Greek sources for the story of the adulteress, the authors still maintain that the story likely originated in Greek. They accept Jerome’s judgment that the story must have been “in many copies” in Latin but doubt his identical judgment regarding the Greek copies of his day, even though “such copies must have been available” (236).

In chapter 7, the authors trace the story in late antiquity, especially in the Greek liturgical tradition. Although the Constantinopolitan liturgical tradition did not include the story in its readings on John chapters 7 and 8, the “Old Greek Chapters” (kephalaia and titloi) from the sixth century included a chapter title for the pericope. The authors’ presentation of the evidence suggests that the story originated as an agraphon in Greek, was expertly adapted into its traditional location in John in the Greek-speaking West, from where it entered and began to dominate the Latin West, and only later gradually moved East and gained an eventual predominance in Greek copies. Interestingly, against the conventional wisdom that asterisks beside a text in a manuscript indicate its spuriousness, the long-standing practice of those marks in Alexandria, Caesarea Maritima, and Constantinople was to indicate verses that also appear in another location. “If the asterisks that mark the pericope in some Byzantine Gospels preserve this tradition, they indicate not that the passage is corrupt but that it should be regarded as fully canonical despite its unstable transmission history” (285). Consequently, “The double square brackets that now frame the pericope adulterae [in] UBS^5 . . . communicate an attitude that is actually quite different from what the Byzantine Gospel manuscripts sought to convey, despite the occasional presence of obeli and asterisks” (306). This is a surprising revelation that the academic community has been slow to realize.

Chapter 8 contains a seemingly exhaustive list of Latin fathers who cited the story as authoritative from the fifth century on. Knust and Wasserman trace the influence, perhaps from the fifth century, of the selection of (modern) John 8:3–11 as the lection for the Feast of Saint Pelagia or Saint Mary of Egypt, the latter “a licentious woman from Alexandria who repented, fled to the desert, and spent her life pursuing ascetic discipline” (326). Indeed, the connection of this passage with female sinner-saints seems natural enough and also added complications to the history of the passage. The result is that “anyone familiar with the pericope adulterae could have readily supplied its details to other contexts and vice versa” (328). In short, the passage dominated in the West but was virtually absent in the East to the extent that a twelfth-century Greek commentator, Euthymios Zigabenos, proclaimed that it was either absent or obelized in the most accurate manuscripts. Be that as it may, the constant dialogue and interaction between East and West “may have contributed to what appears to have become a shared sense that the passage has always been present, even though it has not been” (339).

Some questions remain. How did the passage, which occupies more than eighty percent of the Greek copies, come to dominate such a conservative copying tradition? To what regions do the Byzantine manuscripts that omit the story belong? How does one decide between the apparent authority and canonicity of the passage in the West versus its virtual early absence in the East? Does the passage’s apparent thematic and technical unity with the Fourth Gospel suggest a later but still authoritative redaction, such as John 21 for that Gospel or the ending of Deuteronomy for the Torah?

The book is extremely well-researched and includes a sixty-five-page bibliography. The authors refer to 122 manuscripts, 208 primary sources by ninety-nine (mostly patristic) writers, and cite 872 secondary sources by 666 authors, not including various other standard works and critical editions. The book has 1068 scholarly footnotes and thirty pages of indices. It is now the standard work on the reception of what came to be known as John 7:53–8:11. Pastors and educators who have had to answer questions about the history of this passage should buy this book and read it.

- Jonathan Borland,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

The Church on Mission: A Biblical Vision for Transformation Among All People. By Craig Ott. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019. 121 pages. Paperback, $19.99.

Craig Ott (PhD in missiology) is professor of mission and intercultural studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He formerly served twenty-one years in the mission field and has planted churches internationally and locally. Ott’s rich blend of both academic and field experience contributes to his understanding of the church’s mission. In his preface to The Church on Mission, he states his purpose is “to cast a clear and compelling vision for the mission of the church, rooted in an examination of key biblical text.” To help cast this vision, Ott uses Scripture and his tradition from the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) by using their mission statement that reads, “The EFCA exists to glorify God by multiplying transformational churches among all people.” This statement functions as an organizing structure for the book that Ott unpacks in six chapters.

Beginning in chapter 1, Ott establishes that the “source and goal of mission” is the glory of God. Since the term “transformation” is central to the EFCA mission statement, Ott begins with a definition before examining its linguistic use in context. He explains transformation involves a “change from something to something else,” which begs the question what is being transformed and how. This change occurs in two dimensions: change within the church, and change outside the church in its communities. Ott then examines the first-century linguistic use of “transformation” by considering the Greek word metamorphoō (“metamorphosis”). His cursory examination shows metamorphoō expressed a common ideology associated with the divine encountering an individual in order to effect change, which answers the “what” and “how” questions. Ott asserts that the NT writers used this ideology and terminology for understanding the gospel so that within the NT, metamorphoō refers to the transformation of believers in Christ, who reflect the glory of God in their lives. The Spirit effects this change and enables sanctification to occur by contemplating God’s glory in Christ (2 Cor 3:18). Therefore, transformation begins and ends with God’s glory.

Since Ott defined the term transformation in chapter 1, he continues to describe the nature of the transformational church in chapter 2. He defines the nature of the church as a new creation community, a kingdom community, and a missional community. Throughout the chapter, Ott oscillates from the OT particularity with Israel as a foretaste to the NT universal fulfillment in the Church. Focusing on discontinuity, Israel’s community identified itself with (1) ethnicity and (2) a national kingdom of priest symbolized with (3) the localized temple, but the church as a new creation community identifies with (1) a spiritual birth, (2) a spiritual kingdom; (3) and a universal temple. The implications of the new creation community identify the church with a kingdom, missional ecclesiology. This spiritual birth signifies a universal and inclusive community, and the church as “a kingdom of priest” fulfills Israel’s missional mandate to bless all nations (see Gen 12:3; Exod 19:4–6; 1 Pet 2:9). Lastly, the shift from a localized temple, which symbolized God’s presence, to the church as a dynamic temple discloses its function to manifest and expand God’s presence to the world. For this reason, the church channels its efforts to proclaiming the gospel and planting multiplying, transformational churches to accomplish God’s mission.

In chapter 3, Ott further explains “truth” is foundational and the means for transformational churches since God and his word is truth. Even in the beginning, God created the world through his word, and de-creation occurred through a lie about it. Ott combines this theology of truth and creation, and he applies it to Jesus as the incarnate word of truth who forms a new creation. Truth then serves as the source of genuine transformation of the person’s affections (1 Pet 1:22–23), thinking (Rom 12:2), and living (Jas 1:22–25). Consequently, since the centrality of biblical truth is foundational for transformation, Ott proposes four key elements for reading Scripture: (1) A sound hermeneutic to interpreting Scripture minimizes personal biases in order to listen to the text in its historical context; (2) Consider how to build a bridge from reading issues in the first century to applying biblical principles to a contemporary setting; (3) Identify the missional thrust in Scripture; and (4) discover your personal story within the missional narrative. Therefore, the task of multiplying transformational churches requires the work of the Spirit through the means of God’s word that the church then applies to contemporary issues.

In chapters 4–6, Ott examines the influence of the transformational church collectively in their local and global communities. Beginning with chapter 4, Ott examines the parables of the mustard seed and yeast, followed by explaining the two metaphors of salt and light. He uses the two parables to explain the unexpected influence of transformational churches that irrupt with compassion and justice, not force. Even though the common interpretations of these two parables emphasize the “pervasive influence of the kingdom,” the parables focus on the kingdom arriving subversively and unexpectedly with an eventual universal impact. Likewise, Ott claims the church, as an “instrument” of the kingdom, may seem insignificant like a smoldering wick, but God will not snuff it out. Rather as “salt” and “light,” the church collectively engages social issues with a humble, gentle but active spirit of love that testifies to God’s power that topples worldly kingdoms.

In chapter 5, with the challenges of modern globalization, Ott proposes the church’s priority seeks to reach and embrace all people. To support his claim, Ott primarily uses the book of Acts to trace the early church’s intentional strategy to reach “the ends of the earth.” He asserts the aim of the church’s diversity in unity is a “progressive” supernatural phenomenon only accomplished through the common bond found in Christ. As the church engages in this mission, she forms loving communities that attest to the genuine love of God to the world. Ott concludes by giving an example of both dimensions of reaching and embracing all people with the story of the Ethiopian eunuch. He accentuates the marginalized life of a eunuch in the first-century context to illustrate God’s radical inclusiveness and how He used the former pariah as a catalyst for reaching “the ends of the earth.”

In chapter 6, Ott states the goal of mission is the multiplication of transformational churches that fill the earth with God’s glory. He reasons, if God commissions the church to make disciples of all nations and transformational church are to be established among every people in every community, then the church will need to produce reproducing disciples, leaders, and churches to fill the earth with God’s glory. Ott examines each of these categories to demonstrate the scriptural priority rest on reproduction, which is supported with the storyline of Scripture’s emphasis: “Be fruitful and multiply.” He then concludes that reproduction reflects God’s intention for his new creation, in which discipleship is the key to reproducing churches that glorify God in order to accomplish this vision.

Overall, Ott provides a solid biblical understanding of mission. And though he uses the EFCA mission statement, his Scripture centered analysis makes The Church on Mission applicable to any denomination. His writing style is accessible to laypersons and pastors, and the conservative chapter lengths lend itself to easily facilitate small group discussions. Ott observes the limitations of his own work and offers references at the end of each chapter for further study so that it serves as a beneficial resource for the church.

- Gabriel Estrada,
Gateway Seminary, Ontario, California

Commentary on Romans. Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation. By David G. Peterson. Nashville, TN: Holman, 2017. 613 pages. Hardcover, $39.99.

David G. Peterson currently teaches part-time at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia. He formerly served as the Principal of Oak Hill Theological College in London from 1996–2007, where he lectured in Biblical Studies and Worship. Peterson received an MA from the University of Sydney, a BD from the University of London, and a PhD from the University of Manchester. He is an ordained minister of the Anglican Church of Australia and has authored many books on the topics of worship and sanctification. Aside from the present commentary, Peterson authored The Acts of the Apostles for the Pillar New Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 2009).

The chief concern of the editors of the Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation series is to explore the theology of the Bible in considerable depth while being able to relate that theology to the life of the church. Their goal is more practical, “equip those in Christian ministry who are called by God to preach and teach” (xii), than academic. Peterson acknowledges that “no commentator can read and interact with everything involved” (xv) regarding literature on Romans. Rather than focus on scholarly debates, he concentrates on the text and the theological significance of Paul’s arguments.

In his introduction, Peterson covers multiple topics while primarily focusing on the structure and rhetoric of the letter. He views chapter 6 as Paul’s pivotal fulcrum, which ties together the Roman Christians’ justified status brought about by Christ with their inherent obligation to offer themselves to God. Peterson addresses the heavily debated issue of purpose and stresses the complex and challenging nature of Jewish and Gentile relationships within the Roman church. He also highlights Paul’s future mission to Spain and the spiritual and practical support that he would have needed from the Roman Christians to accomplish his God-given task. Peterson provides a fourteen-section outline of Romans, which he strictly follows in the exegetical section.

One of the benefits of the Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation series is its emphasis on biblical and theological themes. Peterson has chosen to discuss the themes of Romans prior to the exegetical commentary of the text. The inclusion of the themes at the beginning of the commentary is helpful as it gives the reader some idea of what Peterson is going to stress throughout the commentary. He discusses the major redemptive-historical themes of Creation, Sin, and Judgment; God’s Promises to Abraham and His Offspring; Israel and God’s Electing Grace; Israel and the Law; Israel’s Failure and God’s Judgment; and Promises of Ultimate Deliverance.

Each section of the exegetical commentary begins with Peterson’s outline, as found in the introduction along with the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) text. Next, he provides a brief overview of the context of the passage, followed by a discussion of its structure. His discussion on structure includes a more detailed outline and is probably Peterson’s most noteworthy contribution to the exegesis of the text of Romans. Following the outline, the reader will find a verse-by-verse exposition of the text. Each major section of commentary concludes with a helpful bridge that summarizes the previous discussion and relativizes the text for the contemporary audience.

Peterson regularly interacts with previous commentaries on Romans, especially those by Cranfield, Dunn, Jewett, Moo, and Schreiner, and he does interact with other commentators when exegetically necessary. Peterson tends to agree more with Moo and Schreiner over Cranfield and Jewett, with Dunn somewhere in the middle (excluding Dunn’s New Perspective ideology). The reader will quickly become aware of the support for Reformed interpretation, which at times becomes very predictable. For example, in discussing Rom 9, Peterson cites John Piper to support his exegesis. Peterson will, oftentimes, provide very strong opinions on his assessment of previous commentators by using words like “rightly” and “unconvincingly.” His expert command of the Greek text is welcoming as he discusses it frequently throughout the commentary. While the commentary series uses the CSB translation as a base, Peterson will sometimes disagree with the translation and briefly discuss why he disagrees, either in the commentary itself or in a relevant footnote. More sparingly, he will provide exegetical options found in other common English translations.

Surprisingly, Peterson says very little on the topic of the New Perspective on Paul. Instead, he quickly critiques it (fewer than two pages) in his discussion of Paul’s statements in 3:20, 27–29. Peterson sides with Simon Gathercole’s conclusions and negative assessment of the views of New Perspective advocates. He agrees that it is “wrong to caricature first-century Judaism as being consumed with works-righteousness and petty legalism” (207) while he also heralds the view that Paul detected Jewish self-reliance on works of the law.

Those with knowledge of New Testament textual criticism will appreciate Peterson’s footnote-discussion of significant textual variants related to Romans. He provides the major textual witnesses for the variants and often includes the views of prior commentators along with Bruce Metzger’s conclusions.

Peterson’s commentary on Romans is to be commended. Though it often seems overly defensive of Reformed interpretation, Peterson masterfully handles the Greek text, and his emphasis on the structure of Romans is most welcoming. Readers may not find anything significantly new or any heavy debates when it comes to the overall exegesis, but they will find a scholarly work that helps equip those in the ministry of preaching and teaching God’s word.

- David Champagne,
Mississippi College, Clinton, Mississippi

Commentary on 1–2 Timothy and Titus. Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger et al. Nashville: Holman, 2017. 605 pages. Hardcover, $32.88.

In 2015, Broadman Reference launched a new commentary series that encompasses all Old and New Testament books of the Bible. The commentary on 1–2 Timothy and Titus edited by Andreas Köstenberger and others is one accomplishment of this series. Köstenberger is research professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology and Director of the Center for Biblical Studies at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He received his masters and doctorate in social and economic sciences at the Vienna University of Economics. He earned his MDiv from Columbia Biblical Seminary and Graduate School of Missions in Columbia, South Carolina (1988), and his PhD from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1993). Köstenberger is a prolific author having authored, edited, or translated dozens of books. Some of the more recent works include For the Love of God’s Word: An Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Kregel, 2015), The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (B&H, 2016), Going Deeper with New Testament Greek (B&H, 2016), Jesus and the Future: Understanding What He Taught about the End Times (Weaver, 2017).

The Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation series is authored by a variety of scholars who all hold to a high view of Scripture. Each volume seeks to explore a given book of the Bible in relationship to “the theology of Scripture as a whole” (xiii). The stated purpose of the commentary series, rather than being directly academic, is to “equip those in Christian ministry who are called by God to preach and teach the precious truths of Scripture to their congregations, both in North American and in a global context” (xiv).

The commentary format provides introductory matters, including the pertinent historical setting, literary structure, and exegetical treatment of the Pastoral Epistles so as to involve a biblical theology reflection among essential cross-references. The first fifty-three pages of introductory material briefly cover author and date, the relationship between the three epistles, the roles of Timothy and Titus, and their order (1 Timothy and Titus, followed by 2 Timothy). The challenge as to the authenticity of the letters is a lengthier section reasonably concluding Pauline authorship more so than the likelihood of being pseudonymous documents (23). A detailed historical and literary context section is presented toward understanding the false teaching context of Paul’s concerns and instructions for Timothy and Titus prior to his death (33–54).

Each of the exposition sections provided for 1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy cover occasion and purpose, opponents referred to in context, the structure of each letter, followed by verse outline commentary. The commentary sections on each letter are followed by a section on biblical theology themes encompassing half of the commentary. This second half of the commentary develops the goal of biblical theology as it relates to the Pastoral Epistles and various cross-referenced themes between the epistles themselves. Several questions are pursued in an attempt to “prove the interrelation between the various themes and the various sub-themes: What is the relationship between LTT’s (letters to Timothy and Titus) ecclesiology and eschatology? How are these grounded in the mission of Paul and of his apostolic delegates? and What is the relationship between soteriology and ecclesiology, and between soteriology, ecclesiology, and mission?” The point of these questions is to remain “mindful of the complexity of thought represented in these letters” (360).

A number of observations are pertinent to the presentation of the inter-relationship of the Pastoral Epistles and the biblical theology cross-referencing between the letters. First, the mission of Paul, as delineated within the book of Acts and further expounded upon throughout other Pauline Letters, is explicated within the Pastoral Epistles. Paul’s concern for the appointment of qualified leaders who will carry on the mission of the Gospel with integrity while defending what Paul had taught is the primary focus on these letters. Second, the teaching concern of Paul follows his mission, in that it was paramount to pass on and defend the truth in the midst of many false perspectives active in Paul’s later years. The Pastoral Epistles thematically contribute “both to our understanding of the context of Paul’s missional teaching and of the development of his concept of Scripture as a function of the perpetuation of his apostolic ministry and legacy (cf. Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:6)” (412). Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus hinges upon issues of God’s salvific plan through the church and is the content of his mission and teaching. Thus the salvation theme “leads inexorably to the formation of God’s household, the church” (446). The concept of the household of God and its function finds its motivation fixed upon “reaching the lost” as its goal for existence (482).

Though the Pastoral Epistles do not refer to Timothy and Titus “as pastors per se” (512), the language used in the epistles themselves develops the biblical theology of pastoral concerns among the church as a whole for pastors to glean from. An important conclusion is made that, “Holiness is more than avoidance of sin; it is the cultivation of particular character qualities, enabled by the transforming work of God through Jesus Christ that produces a people who are zealous for good works and who adorn the gospel of God” (513). The two remaining inter-related themes discussed are the often-overlooked connections of eschatology and ecclesiology, as well as the relationship of the Pastoral Epistles within the large canon of both testaments.

The Christian Proclamation series on the Pastoral Epistles fulfills the editors’ designated equipping goal of taking themes from a biblical-theological perspective and considering how the Pastoral Epistles handle those themes as they sustain important matters within Paul’s overall missional ministry. Both clergy and congregation will benefit greatly from the pages of these commentaries. They provide one step further toward bridging the gap between biblical studies and theological teaching among the church. Pastors and scholars alike will be blessed by working through the series as they teach and preach theological thematic material within their respective churches and within academic contexts.

- Kevin A. Cox,
Calvary of New Orleans, Metairie, Louisiana

Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind. By Annaka Harris. New York: Harper, 2019. 144 pages. Hardcover, $21.99.

Annaka Harris’s recent book Conscious: A Brief Guide to The Fundamental Mystery of The Mind (Harper, 2019) is an intriguing work that brings together the fields of neuroscience, physics, and philosophy. Harris introduces her readers to the problem of consciousness and seeks to navigate them through the complicated topic. Harris demonstrates to her readers that consciousness is difficult to prove from a scientific standpoint—particularly for those who hold to an atheistic worldview.

Conscious will receive little attention from most Christian audiences, which is not surprising as the author gives no attention to any theological dimensions in her work, despite the massive theological implications of consciousness. Christians, however, should pay attention to Harris’s treatment of consciousness. When considering how a worldview that rejects a creator deviates from Christianity, we must think about how those differences manifest themselves. Exploring Harris’s work helps us do just that.

Harris is a brilliant writer in at least two ways. First, her writing captures the reader with beautiful prose. Harris writes gracefully, weaving stories of her childhood and captivating illustrations together with technical scientific and philosophical jargon. The result of her pleasant writing style leads to her second major strength in Conscious—she writes in a way that a wide spectrum of readers can understand. Readers with limited background in the fields of physics or philosophy are still able to follow Harris’s work. Conscious is a short book at only 110 pages, and the limited length also makes this book on a difficult topic surprisingly easy to navigate.

Harris begins her work by discussing the complicated nature of determining whether or not consciousness exists. While she admits that all human beings feel as though they are conscious, the reality of their consciousness is difficult to prove. One of her illustrations challenges readers to think about how artificial intelligence might one day mimic human behavior perfectly, but this would all be based on algorithms and coding, not conscious (18–19). The ability of human consciousness to be augmented by parasites, drugs, and medical conditions further complicates the question of whether humans are conscious at all. Harris concludes that the best evidence for consciousness comes from “when we think and talk about the mystery of consciousness” (42). Curiously, Harris makes no reference to Descartes’s famous maxim “I think therefore I am” to anchor this point in a well-known philosophical tradition.

From a biblical worldview perspective, the most significant argument Harris makes concerns not whether or not we have a conscience, but from whence consciousness comes. Harris advocates a position known as panpsychism, which advocates all matter in the universe being conscious at some level. In this view, consciousness is an inherent part of matter. Harris argues that, based on the scientific data, panpsychism is the best solution to the problem of consciousness. This position, which Harris admits is not currently a part of the philosophical or scientific mainstream, argues that all matter—the cells in your body, rocks, plants, animals, etc.—all have a conscious experience. Their consciousness may not rise to the same level as human consciousness, but they are still conscious in some sense. In arguing for panpsychism, Harris quotes philosopher Galen Strawson who says that “panpsychism is the most plausible theoretical view to adopt if one is an out-and-out naturalist” (72).

What a fascinating divide in worldview! While Christian philosophers still struggle with defining and understanding consciousness, the question of why human beings possess consciousness is clearly answered for anyone who understands the biblical narrative as truth. God creates humans not only as physical beings but as spiritual beings as well. The human soul is responsible for human consciousness, and the soul is a part of God’s design for every human creature.

Harris mentions the concept of a “soul” in only one paragraph of her work (74). She notes that the innate sense of consciousness experienced by individuals makes it “easy to see how human beings across the globe, generation after generation, have effortlessly constructed various notions of a ‘soul’ and descriptions of life after death that bear a striking resemblance to life before death.” Most readers will agree with Harris that the reasons for believing in a soul are indeed easy to see. Curiously, Harris says nothing more about the existence of souls.

To be clear, Harris is not writing in an effort to attack Christianity or any other theistic worldview. Her work is truly atheistic, not anti-theistic. However, it is curious (and unfortunate) that such a capable writer has produced a work that is accessible to the masses yet does not address the dominant belief that consciousness derives from a soul. One wonders if she does not consider the soul to be so removed from scientific inquiry not to merit further discussion.

In any case, Christian readers should take note that naturalism cannot explain why we experience consciousness, a fact that Harris admits (105–110). Naturalists, in lieu of hard evidence for consciousness, build their own systems of faith about why they are conscious. The system of faith advocated by Harris ignores a concept of a soul but affirms the possibility that a lump of charcoal is conscious in some sense. While a broad range of readers may find her work enjoyable and intriguing, her explanation for why we are conscious is highly unlikely to find wide acceptance.

Christians who read Harris should be reminded anew of the incredible explanatory scope of the biblical worldview. Naturalists may have to adopt panpsychism as the most likely solution for the existence of a consciousness, but the biblical worldview supports a far more simple and elegant solution. We are conscious because God has made us conscious beings. We are conscious of ourselves, of others, and of our Creator who desires us all to use our consciousness to know and enjoy him with all of our being.

- Cory Barnes,
Shorter University, Rome, Georgia

Costly Obedience: What we can Learn from the Celibate Gay Christian Community. By Mark Yarhouse and Olya Zaporozhets. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019. 239 pages. Paperback, $17.99.

Christians currently find themselves in an age where the question of sexuality looms large over their churches. In this era of an “us versus them” mentality, a surprising phenomenon is occurring: faithful orthodox Christians from all denominations are emerging from the shadows to tell their family and churches that they experience same-sex attraction. The authors believe this unusual group of believers has the potential to help churches: “We want to ask how their experience of costly obedience to Jesus Christ in our contemporary culture might ‘reorient’ the church in healthy and necessary ways” (188).

The authors are Mark Yarhouse (PsyD, Wheaton College) and Olya Zaporozhets (PhD, University of Toledo), both of whom teach on faculty at Regent University in the Psychology and Counseling department. Yarhouse, an evangelical authority on LGBTQ issues, also heads the Sexual Identity Institute through Wheaton College, of which Zaporozhets is also a fellow.

According to the authors, Costly Obedience is “a milestone in evangelical Christian publishing,” (12) the purpose of which is to introduce the reader to “gay and lesbian Christians who have committed themselves to biblical faithfulness,” so that the reader may “better understand the “unique set of challenges” faced by gay or SSA Christians (12). Furthermore, Yarhouse and Zaporozhets desire to help non-SSA Christians “discern and appreciate the gift of their costly witness and the potential it has to bring revival to our churches” (12).

Costly Obedience is unlike any other Christian book currently on the shelf. The authors blend statistics, personal narrative, psychology, and theology into a work that personalizes an issue that has created a smoking battleground between conservative theologians and psychologists. Christians with same-sex attraction, usually lost in the partisan rhetoric, have become casualties of this war. Yarhouse and Zaporozhets have included in Costly Obedience poignant personal stories by celibate gay or SSA Christians, vignettes that serve as reminders that homosexuality is not just “out there.”

The book revolves around a study conducted by Yarhouse and Zaporozhets with three hundred celibate gay Christians. The authors draw upon thirteen interviews with celibate gay Christians and thirteen interviews with friends and family of celibate gay Christians. The authors also include information from a study conducted upon two hundred and sixty-two Protestant seminary-educated pastors.

The authors examine in chapter 1 the ways in which churches may accidentally create a hostile environment. The authors surveyed pastors and noted the following undesirable features: some pastors agree their church lacks vision in this area, some pastors remain silent when they hear derogatory remarks, and some pastors assume that orientation is itself sinful. Helpful as they may be, Costly Obedience does not consist of surveys alone. Yarhouse and Zaporozhets helpfully interlace their professional opinions throughout the work to provide the reader with a prescriptive direction. For example, the authors make the following claim to the assumption that orientation is inherently sinful: “In our experience, such a view can lead to unrealistic expectations for change and a limited view of what constitutes healing and sanctification in the life of the person who experiences same-sex attraction” (41). The focus of chapter 2 is the LGBTQ+ culture, and here the authors discuss the “gay script,” the question of causation, and the family-like nature of the gay community.

Chapter 3 sets Costly Obedience apart from other works in the best possible way. Here the authors bring in their statistics and examine the beliefs of celibate gay Christians on questions relevant to sexuality. The authors allow this group to speak in their language of choice, a feature that provides clarity against current caricatures. For example, the authors note that those surveyed “told us that what was most important to them was to identify as a Christian . . . they ranked ‘Christian’ as the label they identified with the highest percentage of the time” (86). This simple fact challenges the common conservative assertion that gay or SSA Christians ground their identity in their sexuality.

According to the authors, their sample of celibate Christians became aware of their same-sex attraction and following confusion around the average age of thirteen, two milestones “quite similar to the broader community of gay and lesbian sexual minorities” (118). This information and the other similar milestone statistics found in chapter 4 would surely aid pastors and churches minister to this group. Might not churches benefit, for example, from the knowledge that of the three hundred Christians surveyed, fifty-seven percent are not known publicly as gay (116)?

The authors address church leaders in chapter 5, wherein they articulate what this group feels they need from their churches: people who listen, affirmation they are wanted, consistent sexual standards, etc. Pastors will do well to prayerfully reflect upon this chapter; they may discover that their coverage of this issue borders on neglect.

Only 36.1% of the Christians surveyed feel they are currently satisfied with the level of social support they receive from their church regarding their same-sex sexuality, and family fares marginally better at 37.1% (171). Information such as this is found in Chapter 6 on social support, and the authors provide suggestions on how others can be better listeners and better friends.

The authors round out Costly Obedience in chapter 7. Here they list the ways in which churches can benefit from better incorporating gay or SSA Christians into their shared life in many ways. According to the authors, celibate gay or SSA Christians embody suffering and grace in unique ways, invite more honest discussion, witness to the contemporary culture, provide helpful critique, humanize the issue, heighten sensitivity to those on the margins, bring available time to ministry, increase authenticity, and cultivate close friendships.

Readers of Costly Obedience will either love or hate the book. Christians who staunchly oppose the baptizing of currently “gay” language will take umbrage with the fact that the authors have clearly taken a side in the language debate. These Christians may also hold the view articulated by interviewee Lucas that Yarhouse, Zaporozhets, and others like them: “those people out there are out to get us” (147). Indeed, the thinkers currently fighting over language have legitimate concerns, but the authors are less concerned with articulating a systematic theology and more concerned with bringing the personal perspectives of orthodox gay or SSA Christians into the discussion. Nevertheless, such readers should still respect the results of the study. How often have non-gay or non-SSA Christian thinkers spoken on behalf of this silent minority? Would all Christian readers not benefit, at least, from the statistics alone? On the other hand, pastors in urban settings and lay Christians with gay or SSA friends and family may find in Costly Obedience a work that finally provides the sort of insight they crave. Now that the culture is aware that homosexuality is present in all spaces, including churches, many Christians are not satisfied with a perspective that adopts the often-simplistic view of public theologians. For Christians who want to minister to this group, Costly Obedience provides a window into the hearts and minds of a people who simply want to be obedient.

- Jeremy Pippen,
Grace Community Church, New Orleans, Louisiana

Discovering the New Testament: An Introduction to Its Background, Theology, and Themes. Vol. 1: The Gospels and Acts. By Mark J. Keown. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018. Hardcover, $44.99.

Mark J. Keown (ThD) is a Senior Lecturer for the School of Theology at Laidlaw College in Auckland, New Zealand. Keown’s other publications include a commentary on Philippians in the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series, a forthcoming commentary on Galatians, and a work entitled Jesus in a World of Colliding Empires: A Fresh Look at Mark’s Jesus from the Perspective of Military Power and Expectations. The present work is volume 1 of a three-volume introduction to the New Testament. Volume 1 covers the Gospels and Acts, volume 2 is a treatment of Paul’s Letters, and volume 3 will deal with the General Epistles and Revelation. The content of these three volumes is taken largely from Keown’s lectures on the New Testament at Laidlaw College.

Any New Testament introduction, even a three-volume introduction, is necessarily selective. The author must decide not only what material to include, but the breadth of the discussion of each topic will be driven by the author’s preconceived notions of what topics matter most for the study of the New Testament. Two statements from Keown indicate the main thrust of this three-volume work. First, Keown claimed that he wrote from a perspective of “historical-critical optimism and a hermeneutic of trust in the Scriptures as God’s Word” (xiv). Consequently, a large percentage of this volume is devoted to the study of the text of the New Testament and not just to background issues. The New Testament is not only treated as historically reliable, but Keown is intentional in moving from the historical issues, through the text, to the theology of the New Testament. Second, Keown, after noting that the Jewish background of the New Testament has been heavily emphasized in recent scholarship, argued that in the last few decades, “there has been a great rise in interest in interpreting the New Testament against a Greco-Roman background, but without the skepticism” of past scholars (103). This statement demonstrates Keown’s concern to focus on the New Testament in light of the Greco-Roman background of the first century.

This emphasis on the Greco-Roman background of the New Testament is reflected in the initial chapters of the book. Keown included very brief treatments of such topics as the New Testament canon and textual criticism, while at the same time including lengthier discussions of the Roman pattern for cities and the Roman pantheon of gods. Especially for an introduction to the Gospels and Acts, one could argue that the attention given to the Roman pantheon of gods could have been limited for the sake of more extensive consideration of the Jewish background of the Gospels. Yet overall, Keown’s opening chapters do offer easy-to-read, if perhaps very brief, summaries of the very complicated background issues so important for the study of the New Testament. These opening chapters include a general introduction to the New Testament, a discussion of the Jewish context of the New Testament, a chapter on the Greco-Roman context of the New Testament, a chapter covering the critical methodologies of New Testament study, and a chapter on the Synoptic Problem.

Keown is at his best when giving concise summaries of very complicated topics. His chapter on critical methodologies for New Testament study provides the beginning student with a good introduction to the various methodologies employed by New Testament scholars. Likewise, his chapter on the Synoptic Problem offers a very good overview of the main issues in Synoptic studies and includes a number of charts that will prove beneficial in helping the reader to visualize the different solutions to the Synoptic Problem. These chapters demonstrate the nature of this New Testament introduction, a work geared toward undergraduate students in a survey course on the New Testament. While perhaps not as useful as a graduate or advanced-level textbook, Keown’s experience teaching undergraduate courses on the New Testament is evident in his concise and clear handling of complicated issues.

In his chapters on each individual Gospel and Acts, Keown offers very readable, though sometimes basic, introductions to each of these books. These chapters provide the beginning student of the New Testament with good background information on these New Testament books, but these chapters tend to be a bit repetitive and not quite as helpful when discussing the content and theology of each book.

The final three chapters represent the most unique aspect of this work. Keown closes with a chapter on the Kingdom of God, a chapter on miracles, and a chapter on parables. Keown offers lengthy treatments of each of these three topics. The chapter on miracles clearly reflects another driving emphasis of Keown’s work, that he was writing for the “dominant and popular evangelical and charismatic churches in New Zealand and some other European countries” (xiii). Keown argued that miracles “should be integral to the continuing ministry to the church.” Keown is careful to distance himself from the prosperity preachers and so-called miracle workers so prevalent today, but he also clearly argues for the continuation of the miraculous gifts in the life of the church today. Also of interest for Southern Baptists is Keown’s egalitarian beliefs. While not quite as obvious in this volume on the Gospels and Acts, Keown drops enough hints to let the reader know that he does not believe there are to be any gender distinctions in church leadership.

Discovering the New Testament is not likely to replace the standard New Testament introductions used in Southern Baptist institutions, in part due to the expense associated with purchasing a 3 volume introduction to the New Testament. Nevertheless, the student of the New Testament looking for a readable introduction to the study of the New Testament will benefit from Discovering the New Testament. At times, Keown will leave the reader longing for more, such as when he covers intertestamental history in just two paragraphs, but his more in-depth treatment of other areas will serve the reader well and provide a unique perspective on the study of the New Testament.

- Charles A. Ray III,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement. Counterpoints: Bible and Theology. Edited by Andrew J. Johnson and Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019. 252 pages. Paperback, $22.99.

For whom did Christ die? Traditional Protestant theology proposes the dichotomy between limited or universal atonement. Are there other views worth considering? The general editor of this series, Adam J. Johnson (associate professor of theology at Biola University), affirms so. In this text in the Counterpoints series, five respected theologians with five distinct views analyze the extent of the atonement through the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Traditional Reformed, Wesleyan, and Christian Universalism perspectives (with a short response from each counterpoint view).

Andrew Louth (emeritus professor of Patristic and Byzantine Studies at Durham University) begins the discussion from the Eastern Orthodox View. According to Louth, the notion of the atonement’s extent (much like the doctrine of the atonement itself) is not a prevalent doctrine within historic or modern Eastern Orthodoxy. Readers familiar with modern and historic soteriological discourses within Eastern Orthodoxy will find in Louth’s chapter the prevalence of theosis acquired not so much through the atoning work of Christ on the cross but through the incarnation. God’s purpose in Christ was to bring humanity into union with God (deification), and such is the “greater arc” (35) of theology (not the atonement). The following quote summarizes Louth’s position well:

I have argued that the notion of the extent of the atonement sits ill within the perspective of Orthodox theology. This is mainly because the notion of the atonement, with the suggestion that salvation is to be understood in terms of making amends, satisfaction, and expiation as the dictionary suggests, narrows down the myriad ways in which the saving work of Christ is understood in the biblical and patristic tradition. (42)

Matthew Levering (James N. and Mary D. Perry Jr. Chair of Theology at Mundelein Seminary) follows the response section of Louth’s perspective with the Roman Catholic View. After laying a basic scriptural foundation, Levering builds his case upon magisterial teaching. From popes and councils to early church fathers and scholastics, Levering argues that the Catholic Church’s position on the atonement’s extent is universal in nature though limited in application. He seeks to hold in tension what he sees as two “poles” of biblical truth, namely that (while loving all creatures and sending Jesus to die for everyone) God predestines some to salvation (pole one) while permitting free creatures to rebel by their own volition (pole two).

The third perspective comes from Michael Horton (J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary). His view, called both Traditional Reformed View and definite atonement, rejects the two “poles” proposed by Levering. While Scripture does uphold universal and particular teachings of the atonement, Horton does not see these as opposite or contradictory. God (in Horton’s view) predestines some by eternal decree for salvation. Their election (and corresponding particular redemption) assumes that the atonement was extended to them to the neglect of others. Horton makes this case first historically then biblically. Expounding upon the Traditional Reformed View, Horton says, “The Father chose a bride for his Son, the Son accepted this role as mediator of the elect, and the Holy Spirit pledged to bring the elect into a saving communion with Christ” (118). For Horton, the cross did not make humanity savable; it actually saves (the elect). Christ’s atonement, thus, is limited not by the sinner but by God. One’s salvation cannot (according to Horton) be dependent upon anything within the individual. As such, one’s salvation (secured by Christ’s work on the cross) is all of grace. One feature of Horton’s theology that may surprise some is his belief that Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient to save all people. The atonement is limited in scope, not efficacy, according to Horton. Thus, the matter of the atonement’s extent rests not between two poles of tension but two circles (or truths) comfortably placed upon one another.

Fred Sanders (professor of theology in the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University) provides the fourth counterpoint perspective called the Wesleyan View. As one might expect given the title, Sanders holds to a universal atonement view, yet his view is based more upon classic Trinitarian and Christological theology than biblical exegesis (though Scripture is not altogether absent). When addressed, Sanders argues that Scripture clearly teaches the universal efficacy of the atonement (though he fails to address passages of Scripture that may suggest otherwise). Sanders writes at length how one must distinguish between Christ’s nature and person, the work of the Son and the Spirit, and the atonement accomplished and applied. With these distinctions in mind, Sanders argues that salvation is accomplished universally by the Son but applicable by the Holy Spirit only to those who believe. God’s intentions to save the whole human race is made evident (according to Sanders) by the hypostatic union, but the application of the atonement (redemption) is conditioned upon faith.

Tom Greggs (Marischal Chair of Divinity at the University of Aberdeen) states he easily identifies and builds upon the theology of Sanders with his Christian Universalist View (192). His view is well defined in his opening sentence: “Christian universalism is the view that the extent of the atonement is such that it is not only universally offered to all human beings but also universally effective for all human beings.” (197). God loves all His creation and thus extends the saving effects of the cross to all humanity. It is here that the reader sees what is “Christian” about his universalism. People are not saved simply by being born but because of Christ’s work on the cross. Blending the Wesleyanism of Sanders with the Calvinism of Horton (though not consistently), Greggs states that God truly desires all to be saved while irresistibly applying Christ’s saving power upon persons. Thus, there is no eternal (or temporary) damnation of sinners in hell, for such a notion contradicts God’s omnibenevolence. The influence of Karl Barth on Greggs is noticeable, though, in this chapter, he does not express a theology identical to Barth’s universalism. Here, Greggs attempts to reconcile the egregious nature of sin before God with divine love for all creation. Though not altogether absent, Scriptural support is a noticeable omission, for the argument is made primarily upon divine attributes (not divine testimony).

Those familiar with the methodology of the many “Views” books today know that authors present their view, cordially interact with differing perspectives, yet retain their original view. It is unlikely that anyone reading this book will change his or her mind from the original position held, for the frameworks of these views are so radically different from one another (as this book so helpfully portrayed). Readers of this particular academic journal will likely ascribe either to the views of Sanders or Horton, retaining the traditional dichotomy between a universal or limited atonement (thereby rejecting universalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism altogether). Yet I fear that readers might assume that the perspectives offered by Sanders and Horton fully represent the vastness of the unlimited and limited atonement views (which they do not). There are other ways of holding to a universal atonement other than the view argued by Sanders just as there are other ways of holding to a limited atonement view other than that argued by Horton.

Additionally, readers may be surprised that they can agree with traditions very different from their own concerning the atonement’s extent, even if they disagree with that tradition’s view of the atonement’s application. Said another way, a Southern Baptist may have a lot in common with a Roman Catholic (for example) on how wide the atonement extends even if they disagree with their doctrines of redemption and justification. As it relates to the extent, the options are fairly simple. Either Christ died for everyone, he died for some, or the matter is irrelevant. Readers of this academic journal will likely hold to the first or second options, yet they might find that they can agree on the extent of the atonement with traditions very different from their own.

- Daniel Kirkpatrick,
University of the Southwest and Southeastern Baptist Association,
Hobbs, New Mexico

Galatians: A Commentary. By Craig S. Keener. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019. xlvii + 848 pages. Hardcover, $59.99.

Craig Keener is well-known as an exceptional biblical scholar and commentator. His writings include many noteworthy books and articles, including a massive four-volume commentary on Acts. His writing is characteristically well-organized and extensive, particularly with reference to background literature and cultural issues; this commentary on Galatians is no exception, although the volume is a more manageable size than some of his other works.

This volume contains the normal components of biblical commentaries, including a critical introduction that covers issues relevant to the biblical background and modern scholarship as well as a commentary proper that discusses the biblical text verse-by-verse. The primary content of Keener’s commentary contains four general components. The first two simply consist of Keener’s translation of Galatians, which he intended to be “a more colloquial, dynamic-equivalent rendering” (xii), and a working outline of the letter, including six major sections (i.e., 1:1–5; 1:6–12; 1:13–2:21; 3:1–5:12; 5:13–6:10; and 6:11–18). The third component is the introduction, in which Keener discussed, with varying levels of detail, various critical issues concerning the interpretation of Galatians. Finally, the fourth component consists of the commentary proper, which is further subdivided into six sections reflecting the major divisions that Keener identified in his working outline.

In the introduction, Keener advocated for a later date of Galatians (i.e., about 50–52 after the Jerusalem council; 13) and a South Galatian theory (17). He also expressed uncertainty about the audience and opponents, although, for the latter issue, he offered an extended discussion of the evidence. Keener then proceeded with his commentary, offering a detailed examination of the text in order of his six main divisions, although the third and fourth sections formed the bulk of the commentary—129 and 276 pages, respectively. Beyond these primary aspects of the book, the bibliography and indices are notable in their own respects. The bibliography covers 124 double-column pages with no sub-divisions, and the indices are similarly extensive. In addition to the main text, the commentary contains two peripheral elements, including excurses and a Bridging Horizons component that attempts to bridge the biblical and modern contexts in select passages. This final element is quite irregular—the last one appears at Gal 3:28—and does not have a corresponding page identifying their locations; nevertheless, when these sections occur, the content is usually helpful and thought-provoking (see his explanation on p. 121).

A couple of Keener’s other positions on issues critical to modern scholarship are worth identifying briefly. Related to his position on the later date of Galatians, Keener rejected the famine visit view of Gal 2:1–10; instead, he believes the passage refers to the same events of Acts 15 (108). He also adopted the objective genitive view of the Christ-faith references in Gal 2:16 and 3:22 (cf. Rom 3:22), although he concluded that the distinction does not “require radically different readings of Pauline theology” (181). Additionally, Keener referenced frequently and favorably New Perspective scholars and positions within the commentary, including particularly two excurses on Law-Works (183–88) and The New Perspective on Paul (242–44). Unfortunately, although Keener offered a helpful description of the various perspectives, he remained uncommitted in the end, though favorable to the New Perspective views of Paul’s relationship to Judaism as “an important and fuller corrective of older approaches that viewed Paul as leading a new religion” (244). Conversely, a particularly noteworthy assertion here regards a statement in the introduction where Keener asserted that “some alleged contrasts between the New Perspective and the Reformers rest on a deficient and perhaps stereotyped understanding of the latter’s theology” (2). This sort of careful—occasionally even noncommittal—nuancing characterizes several points of Keener’s work.

Two critiques are worth noting briefly. First, Keener provided an original translation that is intentionally “a more colloquial, dynamic-equivalent rendering” (xii). Keener’s rationalization for this was to provide a translation that is different from more conventional translations. However, Keener’s “ordinary language” translation tends to be unordinary and stilted at several points, even by colloquial standards, making the translation a little awkward to read. A more substantive critique, however, regards Keener’s final Bridging Horizons section. The discussion here regards Keener’s explanation of Gal 3:28 and the issue of male and female distinctions in Paul’s theology.

While this extended discussion included a significant amount of background evidence, Keener failed to follow through with a respectable conclusion about the modern significance. Instead, Keener pointed the reader elsewhere and settled with an appeal that was logically inferior to the rest of his work:

I have argued elsewhere that Paul stood on the more progressive side of these matters in his era, but that he wrote in a context that suspected minority cults of undermining conventional family values. Paul accommodated these concerns, but had he been contextualizing instead for the Western context today, I believe that he would have supported women’s full and equal participation in the Christian community. (318)

Rather than defend his case cogently, Keener chose a more dismissive tone that one could use just as easily to justify virtually any modern interpretive position on Scripture (i.e., “If Paul were still alive and saw the world as I do, then he clearly would agree with me.”). A more positive example of Keener’s use of these sections, however, may be found in his discussion of 2:14, where, addressing the presence of earthly allegiances (e.g., political, social, ethnic, etc.), Keener stated, “If we cannot love one another enough to listen to and understand others’ concerns, we treat our nationalistic or ethnic allegiances as stronger in practice than our membership in Christ’s body” (166). This example illustrates better Keener’s characteristic use of these sections; thus, the greater disappointment, in general, is their occasional nature.

Aside from these and other minor points of critique, Keener’s volume on Galatians is a welcome addition to the wealth of Galatians commentaries, both because of Keener’s characteristic knowledge of the relevant background literature and his ability to condense that knowledge in a form that communicates well to a range of audiences. This book would appeal well to students, scholars, and academically-minded pastors and laypersons.

- Dustin M. Rigsby,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

The Genealogical Adam & Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry. By S. Joshua Swamidass. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019. 247 pages. $27.00.

S. Joshua Swamidass is an associate professor of pathology and immunology and associate professor of biomedical engineering at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. He earned a PhD and MD from the University of California, Irvine and completed his clinical pathology residency at Washington University. Swamidass identifies himself as “a scientist in the Church and a Christian in science” whose goal is to make room for differing viewpoints within both science and the church (5). In his book, The Genealogical Adam & Eve, Swamidass brings his scientific expertise and thorough research to bear on a question that has implications for both the scientific community and the church.

The question that Swamidass seeks to answer is whether or not it is true, as many atheistic biologists and evolutionary creationists affirm, that modern genetics has disproven a literal Adam and Eve from whom all people are descended (6). In addressing the apparent conflict between science and the church, Swamidass, a scientist at a secular university, steps out in courage in order to uphold the traditional Christian affirmation of an historical Adam and Eve. He is motivated by both, empathy for Christians who affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve and scientific curiosity. Like a seasoned scientist, Swamidass develops a hypothesis that tests the claims made by those who affirm a historical Adam and Eve to determine whether modern science falsifies their claim.

Swamidass’s book is divided into five sections, with one appendix, a bibliography, and general and scriptural indices. The first section establishes the fracture over the issue of an actual Adam and Eve. In the second section, Swamidass proposes and tests his Genealogical Hypothesis. The first three propositions are that Adam and Eve 1) “lived recently in the Middle East,” 2) “are genealogical ancestors of everyone,” and 3) “are de novo created” (26). These three propositions affirm the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve in Genesis by most Christians throughout history. The last three propositions of the hypothesis have not traditionally been included in the popular Christian understanding of Genesis and are thus more controversial. These propositions are that 4) the descendants of Adam and Eve interbred with other people outside of the garden, 5) no additional miracles other than the de novo creation by God are allowed, and 6) “the people outside the garden would share common descent with the great apes, and the size of their population would never dip down to a single couple” (26). The third section contains a conversation between science and theology about what it means to be human. In the fourth section, Swamidass attempts to demonstrate that the ecclesiastical view and scientific view of Adam and Even are not mutually exclusive, but can both be simultaneously true. In the fifth section, he urges “tolerance, humility, and patience” in the conversation between those who hold differing opinions about Adam and Eve, considering many questions remain unanswered.

The most evident strength of Swamidass’s work is the way in which he is able to use his scientific expertise and methodology in answering questions from both biology and theology. In chapter three, Swamidass makes an important distinction between genetics and genealogy. He compares genetics, which analyzes the DNA passed from one generation to the next within a population, to a streetlight and a telescope (35). Genetic ancestry can clearly illuminate recent ancestral relations, but is diluted relatively quickly, with each succeeding generation only inheriting a fraction of the genetic material from previous generations; half from parents, one fourth from grandparents, one eighth from great-grandparents, etc.[1] On the other hand, genetics as a telescope can show patterns of inheritance in the distant past among populations, but provides no evidence for genealogical ancestry. The important conclusion from this distinction is that, despite the claims to the contrary, modern genetics does not disprove genealogical descent from a historical Adam and Eve. Thus, premise two is not falsified by modern genetics. Furthermore, genealogical analyses, using computer simulations, show that universal human ancestors could have arisen within the last two to three thousand years (45). Swamidass’s expertise and knowledge in his field strengthens the faith of Christians who believe what the Bible says about human descent from a historical Adam and Eve. Many Christians will find The Genealogical Adam and Eve to be a useful tool in defending the biblical account of human origins.

There are, however, several pieces of evidence that Swamidass uses to support his hypothesis to which some Christians would object. First, he posits that there were biological humans outside of the garden that arose through an evolutionary process on which the biblical account is silent. Swamidass believes, however, that there are hints to the existence of these humans using the wife of Cain and the Nephilim as examples. Second, he holds that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are separate creation accounts, an idea that is rejected by many Old Testament scholars, including C. John Collins in his recent book Reading Genesis Well.[2] Swamidass is not unaware of these objections and deals with them throughout the book. He holds that there is room for speculation and that many theologians have debated the above issues throughout history up to the present. Many Christians, however, are not willing to speculate in order to accommodate the witness of scripture to modern scientific findings. Furthermore, positing people outside of the garden raises several theological questions concerning their status. Were they in the image of God? Did they have fallen natures? Did they have a spirit that lived on after their death? Swamidass is aware of these questions and explores possible solutions in the second section of the book. He does not offer definitive answers, but leaves room for theological speculation concerning the mystery of the people outside of the garden, which is one of his stated goals.

Several aspects of Swamidass’s work are to be commended. He holds to a high view of the Bible, affirming the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and Hermeneutics. Swamidass fairly presents perspectives from many sides of contentious issues, following his call for tolerance, humility, and patience. He provides an example of civility for those who follow in his footsteps. The four free online appendices which include responses to Swamidass’s work by such notable scholars as Andrew Torrance, C. John Collins, William Lane Craig, and John Hilbur further exemplify the positive outcomes when Christians work together in conversation, even when there is disagreement.[3] Swamidass helps lead the way for further amicable conversation between the fields of science and theology. His meticulous research is a valuable resource for those who want to further pursue the topic of human origins from a scientific and theological perspective.

- Tyler Dean,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

The Gospel at Work: How the Gospel Gives New Purpose and Meaning to Our Jobs. Updated and Expanded. By Sebastian Traeger and Greg Gilbert. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018. 192 pages. Paperback, $17.99.

Work is an essential part of everyday life for both Christians and non-Christians. However, Christians have a responsibility to allow God to shape the way they think about and approach work. The Gospel at Work is a warning and an appeal to Christians about their relationship with work. The book’s authors are uniquely suited for the topic. Sebastian Traeger has a background in business and administration. He has served as the executive vice president for the International Mission Board, and he has started and managed numerous companies. Greg Gilbert has a background in ministry. He is the pastor of Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and he has written multiple books. The authors represent different perspectives about work, but they presented a unified and compelling message.

The central message of The Gospel at Work is that all Christians should view “work as service to King Jesus” (20). The authors pointed out that many Christians fall into one of two traps: idolatry of work or idleness in work. Idolatry occurs when a person looks to their job as the primary source of meaning, purpose, and fulfillment. Their job becomes a god for them, taking on a role that is reserved for Jesus. Ultimately, the false god of work will let them down and leave them empty. Idleness occurs when a person views their job as a necessary burden that must be endured. The person works so that they can earn money, but they find no joy in their work, and they have little concern for the quality of their service. Work is not a part of their Christian walk, and they do not see it as service to Jesus. Both extremes are dangerous, and the authors challenged Christians to reject these approaches and to recognize that their work is service to God, not themselves, and not their employer. God has a purpose for their work, even if they do not have their dream job.

After discussing the foundational concept of “work as service to King Jesus” (20). The authors moved on to practical questions about work. They provided insight into choosing a job, balancing work and other priorities, dealing with challenging work environments, being a Christian boss, sharing the gospel at work, and weighing the value of vocational ministry. The authors included an appendix with additional information about how a Christian can live out the gospel in their work environment. The updated and expanded version of The Gospel at Work includes an additional chapter and a second and third appendix. In the new chapter, the authors challenged the commonly held idea that God calls a person to a particular job, and they suggested an alternative view that they believe is more faithful to the biblical concept of calling. In Appendix 2, Sebastian Traeger and Robert Cline provided a brief theology of work. In Appendix 3, Traeger discussed the ways that readers can use their careers for international missions.

The Gospel at Work is a well written and engaging book that fills a need in the church. The authors used clear language and avoided technical jargon. They intended the book for a popular audience, and they did an excellent job of writing appropriately. The book was well organized and had a logical flow of thought. The authors used headings and subheadings in a way that aided reading and facilitated understanding. The authors included reflection sections at the end of every chapter, which makes the book ideal for personal study and small group study. The book is short and concise. Even the portion of their target audience that is busy and overworked will find that the book is a manageable length and worth the time.

The content of the book is biblical and useful. The authors provided a valuable correction to unbiblical behavior that permeates the church. In the western world, people can easily see their work-life and religious life as separate, but this is not biblical. The authors challenged this falsehood head-on, by pointing out the biblical truth that God is the boss of every Christian, no matter where they work. Therefore, Christians must endeavor to avoid the traps of idolatry and idleness. Christians should view their jobs as part of their work for God and not a separate task or their primary source of fulfillment. The author’s message is accurate and valuable to the church.

If a person is looking for a thorough theology of work, then they should not read this book because they will be disappointed. The authors have provided a brief biblical theology of work in Appendix 2, but the goal of the book is to challenge and correct the way Christians view work, not to provide a theology. However, any Christian who is seeking to understand how their relationship with Christ should influence their career will find this book to be enlightening and practical. Pastors, deacons, teachers, and congregants will all find this book to be a valuable addition to their library.

- Benjamin Browning,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Hot Protestants: A History of Puritanism in England and America. By Michael P. Winship. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018. 368 pages. Hardcover, $28.00.

Perry Miller, the Harvard scholar credited with reinvigorating Puritan studies in the twentieth century, insisted, “Without some understanding of Puritanism, and that at its source, there is no understanding of America.”[4] For this reason, Michael P. Winship’s Hot Protestants: A History of Puritanism in England and America is a valuable resource both to the academy and the American church. Winship, professor of history at the University of Georgia and the author of numerous books on Puritanism, has accomplished something Miller never did: Hot Protestants is the first single-volume history of English and American Puritanism. Winship’s work is an achievement in Anglo-American religious studies. Spanning roughly 150 years, Winship locates the origin of Puritanism in 1540s England and marks its death on both sides of the Atlantic around 1690, carefully tracing its development from a nebulous subculture to an exiled remnant to a national political party. As Winship labors to show, “puritanism was far from a fringe movement” (38). In a turbulent international landscape oscillating between Protestant and Catholic monarchs, Puritanism was a remarkably versatile and grassroots project.

Since its passing, Puritanism has become all things to all people. Satirist H. L. Mencken once defined Puritanism as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” On the other hand, today’s “young, restless, and reformed” movement has largely adopted the Puritan as its unofficial mascot because of a shared Calvinistic theology. However, for a movement so often misrepresented and conformed to the image of each passing generation, Winship’s incisive volume strikes the correct balance between theological and intellectual history. The name “puritan,” originally a term of opprobrium, was first coined neither for their strict code of ethics nor for their Calvinism, but for their rigorous de-Catholicized liturgy in the wake of the Vestarian Controversy (1566). Puritanism was as much about prayer books as it was about piety or predestination. Perceval Wilburn’s description of Puritans as “the hotter sort of Protestants,” after which the book is titled, remains for Winship a fitting definition, as the entire movement was grounded in the idea that Henry VIII’s Reformation in England had not gone nearly far enough. “Soon after it was being thrown at anyone who wanted the English reformation brought more closely in line with Swiss ideas of New Testament church practice, or who displayed the kind of zealous Protestant piety fostered by the nonconformists” (29).

The overwhelming strength of the work is its portrait of Puritanism in all its complexities, warts and all. Winship’s Puritanism is not monolithic, but ever-changing, adaptable, and subject to constant division. Puritans met in “prophesyings” and in Parliament and in “plantations,” as Massachusetts Bay governor John Winthrop called the colonies. (80) There were conforming and nonconforming Puritans, large and strict Congregationalists, Presbyterians and “Presbygationalists”, Calvinists and Baxterians (and semi-Baxterians) (60, 236, 240, 275). For all of its signature Protestant characteristics, Puritanism was indeed a diverse phenomenon. As Winship demonstrates, while there was a general consensus among Puritans on how to personally live out their pious Protestantism, they were not always in agreement on how to interact with those who differed with them. Over time, with new monarchs and various acts of religious liberty, intolerant Puritans disagreed on how to treat Baptists and Quakers and separatists and Anglicans. In 1662, when the Massachusetts synod expanded baptism to the children of unconverted church members, the nation of “visible saints” proved just how culturally flexible Puritanism could indeed be. Despite the persecution that inevitably ensued and the emigration it always produced, nothing unified Puritans and ameliorated relations with anti-Puritans quite like the threat of a Catholic tyrant on the throne, something for which they were ceaselessly vigilant. Winship presents the shifting politics of sixteenth and seventeenth-century England as a necessary backdrop to understanding the multifaceted definition of the word “Puritan.”

In every chapter, Winship tells the story of Puritanism through the lens of individuals, something which lends greater perspective to the crisis of Puritanism itself. As a result, Hot Protestants is not simply a book of movements, but of people. For instance, as Winship demonstrates, John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress was not simply an allegory about conversion abstractly removed from the vicissitudes of everyday life. Instead, “Pilgrim’s Progress, for all its global and age-old appeal, is firmly rooted in the gathered congregations of the Restoration and their piety. . . . The only spiritual shelter in the grim, perilous landscape of Pilgrim’s Progress is Palace Beautiful, a vivid depiction of Restoration-era gathered congregations and the sustaining warmth of their fellowship” (215). Winship’s work adroitly provides 10,000-foot views as well as personal vignettes along the way.

From the beginning of the book, Winship is clear that “Hot Protestants is an introduction to puritanism’s rich, dense, tumultuous history, beginning in England in the 1540s and ending on both sides of the Atlantic around 1690” (1). Winship certainly accomplishes his goal. However, Hot Protestants has almost nothing to say about the forerunners of Puritanism who planted the seeds of nonconformity (i.e., John Wycliffe) nor their theological ancestors afterward who continued their legacy (i.e., Jonathan Edwards). If Perry Miller is in fact correct that Puritanism has shaped the American identity, Winship is virtually silent as to why the Puritans are so important for Americans to study today. In Winship’s volume, the Puritans largely remain figures of the past with very few connections to the reader. Regardless, from a purely historical vantage point, Winship’s Hot Protestants will certainly prove to be a welcomed resource to those who wish to understand the origins of American religion.

- Obbie Todd,
Haynes Creek in Oxford, Georgia;
Luther Rice College & Seminary in Lithonia, Georgia

Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance, 2nd ed. By David A. deSilva. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018. xxii + 499 pages. Paperback, $39.99.

David deSilva is the Trustees’ Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Greek at Ashland Theological Seminary. He holds an A.B. from Princeton University, an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Emory University. DeSilva specializes in the areas of Apocrypha and socio-cultural studies. He has published more than twenty-five books, including An Introduction to the New Testament (translated also into Korean, Arabic, and Chinese) and Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, worked on multiple Bible translation projects, and contributed to multimedia resources with FaithLife. Along with his academic pursuits, deSilva serves as an elder in the United Methodist Church, where he also contributes to ecclesiastic life through skills as a choral director, organist, and composer.

Introducing the Apocrypha, published in 2002, quickly became a standard in the field. Other works dealing with the Apocrypha that were available at the time were either much briefer in treatment or inaccessible to students and laypersons. The book contains eighteen chapters—the first deals with “The Value of the Apocrypha,” defending the necessity of studying the Apocrypha even in a Protestant context, and the second overviews “Historical Context,” focusing on the fate of the Jewish nation during the period from 721 BCE (beginning of the exile) through the first century CE. The remaining sixteen chapters each cover a book included by at least one Christian denomination in the Apocrypha: Tobit, Judith, Greek Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Ben Sira, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Daniel, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees, 2 Esdras, and 4 Maccabees. Each chapter contains sections covering Structure and Contents; Textual Transmission (and often Original Language arguments); Author, Date and Setting; Genre(s) and Purpose; Theological Contributions; Influence; and usually another one or two specific to the document, such as Critique of Gentile Society in Wisdom of Solomon (150). DeSilva, as usual, shines in the theological sections and proffers New Testament scholars excellent insights into the psyche of first-century Jews—including most of the New Testament authors as well as many of their audience! Understanding the author and audience plays a crucial role in interpreting any communication, so those wishing to comprehend the New Testament cannot ignore this valuable window into the culture and theology of the Jewish nation, both in Palestine and the Diaspora.

This second edition significantly updates bibliographic material for each Apocryphal book, contains minor changes within each chapter, and includes a few corrections where the author had received feedback through reviews and conversations following book publication. Adding bibliographies for each book of the Apocrypha enhances the value of the work tremendously and makes it a go-to resource for any study in the area. These bibliographies are included at the end of the work instead of in each chapter (423–437), but deSilva helpfully divides them by book and marks those that themselves contain extensive bibliographies with an asterisk. They contain anywhere from less than ten to nearly one hundred references, with Psalm 151 having only eight suggested sources while the Wisdom of Ben Sira has ninety-three!

DeSilva notes in his preface that “the contents of every chapter have been revised significantly” (xiii). Certainly, every jot and tittle an author publishes has been the source of laborious work, but “significantly” might be overstating the case slightly as to the actual changes in this second edition. Most notably, the original language for Judith (89), Letter of Jeremiah (232) and 1 Esdras (310) now stands as an open question (Greek or perhaps Hebrew/Aramaic) instead of being determined as most likely Hebrew in the first edition. “Greek Esther” replaces “Additions to Esther” as the title of Chapter 5 (though a reference to “Additions to Esther” has slipped through elsewhere, 348). Language concerning the originality of Hebrew versus Greek Esther has also been softened, so that Greek Esther “preserves six large blocks of material” (111) instead of “contains six blocks of material not contained in the Masoretic Text” (110, 1st ed). For 3 Maccabees, an exclamation point is appended to the subtitle: Blessed Be the Deliverer of Israel!, preference is now given to a beginning in medias res instead of a lost opening (333), and the origin is argued more specifically to be during the Ptolemaic period (341). In several chapters, deSilva has incorporated references to artwork and music produced through the centuries based on Apocryphal literature (83, 130, 287).

Corrections include moving Cyrus’s date of ascension to the Persian throne twenty years before overtaking Babylon (34), removing a mention of Ben Sira definitively impacting New Testament writers (207), and cleaning up references overall by moving several parenthetical citations to footnotes (i.e., 230). One can imagine the scathing comments deSilva must have received from Hebrew Bible scholars concerning his mirthful ‘critique’ of Proverbs, and he has (unfortunately) removed it from this edition (161, see 153 in the 1st ed.).

Overall this edition has cleaner font and references, contains updated terminology (“self-mastery language,” 99, “ideal philosopher-king,” 136), and adds a vast wealth of bibliographic data, but maintains the readability, broad scope, and insightful critiques one expects from deSilva. For someone purchasing the book for the first time or interested in serious study of the Apocrypha, I would recommend the second edition over the first primarily because of the bibliographies; for those only concerned with a general introduction to the corpus, the first edition along with a good review of the second pointing out major changes would suffice. Anyone who wants to understand the New Testament more fully should peruse deSilva’s excellent introduction to an oft-ignored (by Protestants) body of literature. Church historians and theologians would also benefit from seeing the origin of several Catholic doctrines in this corpus.

- Allyson Presswood Nance,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Mental Health and the Church: A Ministry Handbook for Including Children and Adults with ADHD, Anxiety, Mood Disorders, and Other Common Mental Health Conditions. By Stephen Grcevich. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018. 207 pages. Paperback, $17.99.

Stephen Grcevich (MD, Northeast Ohio Medical University) is a child and adolescent psychiatrist. He serves as the president and founder of Key Ministry, which is an organization tasked with seeking to build “the body of Christ by empowering churches to minister to families of children with hidden disabilities” (18). As such, the purpose of Mental Health and the Church is to address two main issues related to the interface between the Church and those in need of mental health. First, Grcevich desires for church leaders to become more aware of at least seven barriers that often prevent “children, teens, and adults with common mental health conditions and their families” from participating in church life and activities (31). Second, in response to each of the seven barriers, Grcevich provides seven strategies for developing a model for how “families impacted by mental illness” can be serviced by “churches of all sizes, denominations, and organizational styles” (30).

Grcevich has divided Mental Health and the Church into two parts. Part one is entitled “Understanding the Problem.” This section begins by explaining the disconnect between psychology and church practice. Grcevich emphasizes that many people within American culture seem to believe that “children are either always or never able to control their actions” (italics original, 27). In response, Grcevich argues that his experience suggests that people with mental illness have “some ability to manage their actions and emotions” (italics original, 27).

Next, Grcevich explains that mental illness and disabilities can be episodic, hidden, and situation-specific. This causes issues with both “volunteers and church staff” as well as “highly trained professionals” since “the presence of a mental health-related disability is often difficult to quantify or measure” (36–38). Grcevich even states that “psychiatry is far behind other medical specialties and subspecialties in developing objective tests to establish diagnoses” (39). The importance of such a statement is found in the response of various church leaders. As an example, Grcevich provides a quotation from one of John MacArthur’s sermons.

In this quotation, MacArthur states that “it takes a lot of time to train a child, a lot less time to give him a pill” (61). MacArthur goes on to state that he was not a child in need of a medical prescription but makes no comment on whether others would need such a prescription. Instead, MacArthur’s point appears to be that parents should clearly weigh the cost of prescription medicine before simply accepting this option as the only solution.[5] Still, Grcevich responds to this by making an emotional appeal to the parents of children with mental illness. Grcevich states that he does not “see how shaming parents of kids with serious emotional and behavior conditions who comply with treatment recommendations offered by trained professionals helps to enhance their receptiveness to the gospel” (62). While this response appears to be a misunderstanding of MacArthur’s overall goal in preaching the quoted sermon, one is compelled to agree with some aspects of Grcevich’s statement. Sadly, far too many church leaders—rooted in a misunderstanding of the work of Jay Adams (see Competent to Counsel, 1970) and psychologist belonging to the Biblical Counseling Movement—have focused more on identifying mental illness with sinful behavior than seeking to provide families with support and encouragement (59–60).

However, while Grcevich is somewhat unclear about his stance towards the Biblical Counseling Movement overall, his observations and suggestions are much more in line with Behaviorism and Humanistic therapy. For example, Grcevich argues that pastors or church leaders should not question “the validity of specific diagnoses” found within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (known as DMS-5) because these leaders have “no idea how much research and scientific debate goes into justifying the inclusion of specific illnesses” within this manual (105). Even so, Grcevich questions the biblical research of various scholars and pastors, such as John Rosemond (62–63) and John Piper (141). In fact, much of the biblical research related to mental illness, that Grcevich quickly dismisses, is not even considered in Mental Health and the Church. One would be interested in Grcevich’s response to the following statement made by Heath Lambert (The Gospel and Mental Illness, 2012): “Mental illness is a construct. . . . . Mental illness is a shifting idea that different people fill up with different categories at different times. For the most part it is a category that gets used by secular psychologists to describe behaviors that are outside the range of normal.”[6] Instead, Grcevich is either unaware of such research or simply ignores it for the sake of presenting his own perspective.

The seven barriers presented by Grcevich that tend to exclude the mentally ill from church attendance and participation are influenced by this humanistic perspective. These barriers include the following: 1) a cultural stigma of mental issues, 2) symptoms of untreated anxiety, 3) a lack of understanding of executive functioning and its relationship to spiritual development, 4) problems with sensory processing, 5) problems with social skills and communication, 6) the prevalence of social isolation, and 7) bad church experiences. Grcevich contends that each of these barriers is in some way interrelated (87).

In response to these barriers, Grcevich provides seven strategies that help to promote more of a “mind-set for doing ministry rather than a ‘program’ for ministry” (89). These strategies have been formulated into the acronym TEACHER: 1) assemble an inclusion team, 2) Create welcoming ministry environments, 3) focus on ministry activities most essential for spiritual growth, 4) communicate effectively, 5) help families with their most heartfelt needs, 6) offer education and support, and 7) empower church members to assume responsibility for ministry. Similarly, these strategies are also interrelated and can be viewed as a sort of “owner’s manual” to building a mental health inclusion ministry (92).

From here, the second part of the book, entitled “A Mental Health Inclusion Strategy,” provides several examples for how these strategies can be implemented. This section is very practical and provides several helpful insights. For example, Grcevich states that many churches have responded incorrectly to students with short attention spans. In his words, “the first reaction of many church leaders to kids with short attention spans is to pack as much sensory and visuals into their ministry environments as they possibly can” (143). Instead, Grcevich correctly argues that church leaders should instead seek to create environments that help provide students with opportunities to develop self-control that are not overstimulating. As Grcevich states these environments should be “engaging but not overwhelming” (144, italics original). Another example is found in Grcevich’s comments about cognitive rigidity. This is a social condition in which someone is unable “to consider alternatives to a situation, alternative viewpoints for interpreting the meaning of actions or events, or innovative solutions for problems” (164). Thus, Grcevich reminds his readers that they should be cautious about what they say and do given the “long-lasting impact their cruel or insensitive words many have on others” (165).

In all, the highlights of Mental Health and the Church are found in Grcevich’s expertise as a psychologist. Grcevich clearly presents some of the problems and benefits of psychology while also providing a wealth of practical advice that ought to be consider by every church seeking to service all types of people groups. Grcevich identifies often-overlooked ministry opportunities such as requesting church members to participate in home-based “mission trips to families touched by mental illness” (171).

However, Grcevich also seeks to engage in a few theological issues that would unsettle any believer from even a moderately conservative Christian tradition. One such theological issue, of many found in the book, is the suggestion that the mentally ill are not capable of committing a sin if their action is prompted by their disability. For example, Grcevich tells a story about a teenager named Lisa who, because of her anxiety, assaults her mother so badly that her mother was in the process of calling the police (46–49). Grcevich’s response to this is to simply state that her mother “triggered” her anxiety by pushing “her to attend” a middle school retreat (48). While one can understand that Lisa’s mother might have misunderstood her daughter’s anxiety disorder, one also wonders why Grcevich says nothing condemning about Lisa’s behavior.

Overall, Mental Health and the Church will serve as a helpful handbook for churches seeking to include the mentally ill within their services. If one ignores the theological content, even a conservative Christian will be able to learn from Grcevich’s various insights. Still, this book is recommended for the Christian seeking to understand more about a Christian approach to psychology.

- Ron Lindo,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

The Messianic Vision of the Pentateuch. By Kevin S. Chen. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019. 338 pages. Paperback, $32.00.

For better or worse, modern exegetical methods have been affected by the rise of modern criticism. These criticisms—source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, etc.—are not faulty in and of themselves. Ideally, the goal of each of these criticisms is to simply ask questions about the biblical texts from a variety of avenues. To use a common metaphor, it is often argued that one is better prepared if their tool bag is filled with a plethora of tools—even ones that are never used—than to be lacking one that is necessary. Such a scenario appears to be most useful in an academic setting.

However, the ideological implications of some of these methods has primarily discouraged various evangelical scholars from reading certain biblical passages in traditional ways. Regarding the idea of identifying messianic prophecies within the Old Testament, the work of Michael Rydelnik has brought attention to the “evangelical shift away from” a messianic understanding of specific Old Testament texts.[7] These texts included but are not limited to Gen 3:15, Deut 18:15; 34:10–12, and Ps 110. Though these texts are viewed as messianic by the New Testament authors, the “shifting” evangelical scholars have argued that such a reading was not intended by the Old Testament authors. This is primarily due to their commitment to critical methods, which seek to be objective by dismissing the evidence of tradition and relying on the methods themselves.

One scholar undergirding Rydelnik’s efforts is John Sailhamer. Sailhamer’s book The Meaning of the Pentateuch, published in 2009, is consider his magnum opus. In this work, as well as others, Sailhamer sought to take elements from various critical methods, such as canonical criticism, for the sake of developing a critical-evangelical approach to reaching the Old Testament, known as the canonical approach. In regard to the New Testament authors, the canonical approach does not begin with the assumption that there was nothing to be gained by allowing these authors to guide one’s reading of the Old Testament. Instead, this approach seeks to identify ways in which the New Testament authors arrived at their conclusions.

However, the work of Sailhamer was in many ways incomplete and in need of refinement. Considering this, Kevin Chen has produced The Messianic Vision of the Pentateuch for the purpose of attempting “to continue and extend the work of John Sailhamer” (ix). One will find that Chen’s work presents evangelical scholarship with a presentation of Sailhamer’s arguments in a form that is clear, structured and pedagogical.

Chen begins his work with Jesus statement found in John 5:46, “If you believed in Moses, you would believe in me; for he wrote about me” (1). Chen goes on to highlight similar statements found within the New Testament. These statements help to clarify Chen’s overall goal: “to argue that the Pentateuch itself sets forth an authorial intended, coherent portrait of the Messiah as the center of its theological message” (emphasis added, 5). In other words, Chen seeks to demonstrate how the New Testament authors appear to have found a portrait of the messiah—a “messianic vision” to use Chen’s terminology (12)—within the Pentateuch.

Still, for Chen, the means by which one arrives at this conclusion is important. As noted above, those evangelical scholars who have been influenced by the presuppositions of critical scholars deny that one can see the messiah within the Pentateuch when a critical method is utilized. In response to this, typological readings have become popular among evangelicals. Chen defines typology as any method that “emphasizes patterns and correspondences between people, events, and institutions” and is “primarily a method of historical interpretation, based on the continuity of God’s purpose throughout the history of his covenant” (13). Though Chen admits to some overlap between his method—a version of Sailhamer’s canonical approach—and typology, Chen does provide the following contrast.

Typology is concerned with discovering “historical analogies” whereas his method seeks to identify “textual ones that can be shown to be apart of the author’s compositional strategy” (14). As such, Chen’s analysis is heavily reliant on textual signs such as “repeated words and themes… wordplay, similar syntax or the use of the same literary genre” (7). According to Chen, these textual signs have been placed throughout the Pentateuch like “light passes through a prism” (6). While one beam of white light enters a prism, a rainbow of colors disperses outward after the white light is reflected through the prism. Similarly, a single messianic prophecy begins the Pentateuch (Gen 3:15) and is enhanced by a diversity of literary techniques found in other texts (Gen 12:3; 27:9; 49:9; 24:9, etc.). As Chen explains, “This network of Messianic prophecies can be thought of as a complex array of interrelated lenses that the author of the Pentateuch has carefully designed in order to project for his readers a coherent, sweeping vision of the Messiah” (9).

From here, the rest of the work presents a detailed analysis of each Messianic prophecy as it relates to the other Messianic prophecies within the Pentateuch. Chen traces the usage of the word “seed” (zera‘) from Gen 3:15 onward. Chen provided a detail analysis of the poetic sections of the Pentateuch and their usage of the phrase be’akherit hayyamin, “in the last days” (114). Chen deals with the intentional placement of various narratives and laws within the Pentateuch’s overall structure. In all, Chen demonstrates how the author of the Pentateuch has presented his readers with messianic overtones by means of direct Messianic prophecies, intentional literary analogies, and the author’s choice in structural design. Each point of evidence adds to the overall portrait of the Messiah within the Pentateuch. According to Chen, once all the evidence is considered, “Even the earliest readers of the Pentateuch . . . could have discerned this focus” (276) just as “Paul believed that the Pentateuch teaches the gospel is clear form his citation of Genesis 15:6 with reference to Abraham’s justification by faith in Galatians 3:6 and his follow-up citation of Genesis 18:18 as having ‘preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham’” (28).

In sum, The Messianic Vision is highly recommended for any introductory class focused on reading the biblical narratives according to the literary signs left by the author. Chen’s work provides a road map for searching through the Pentateuch for other “visions” in conjunction with that of the messianic one. One can also imagine a course on evangelical interpretation of the Pentateuch that would include both the words of Rydelnik and Chen. Though Chen’s work is not beyond criticism, it does present a critical approach to the Pentateuch that affirms the New Testament authors’ careful reading of the Old Testament.

- Ron Lindo,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Monergism or Synergism: Is Salvation Cooperative or the Work of God Alone? By Daniel Kirkpatrick. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2018. 318 pages. Paperback, $37.00.

It is not an exaggeration to say that no single debate in soteriology has elicited the sheer volume of spilled-ink like the debate between monergism and synergism. From John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, to Michael Horton and Roger Olsen, “monergism vs. synergism” has been a constant occupant on the theological debate stage. There are a myriad of questions surrounding this debate, such as “Is faith a work?” and “How ought we to think of God’s prevenient grace?” The latest volume to contribute to the centuries-long conversation is Daniel Kirkpatricks’s Monergism or Synergism: Is Salvation Cooperative or God’s Work Alone?.

Kirkpatrick, currently Assistant Professor of Christian Studies at The University of the Southwest, aims for this volume to be a helpful contribution to the ongoing soteric discussion by providing a comparative analysis of both monergism and synergism. Kirkpatrick’s goal is that after thorough analysis, mongergism will be shown to articulate salvation by grace through faith and not by works in a more coherent manner than synergism (53). In chapter 1, Kirkpatrick provides an introduction to the discussion between monergism and synergism. This chapter lays out a history of the discussion, explains Aristotle’s Four Causes and their relevance in his analysis, discusses the subject of soteriology broadly, defines pertinent terms such as “faith” and “work,” provides brief lexical definitions of terms such as “faith,” and “grace,” and gives a roadmap for the rest of the volume. In chapters 2–4, the two systems are analyzed in their conceptions of the soteriological aspects of election, regeneration, and conversion. Chapters 5 and 6 discuss in turn the monergistic and synergistic conception of justification, respectively. Chapter 7 concludes the book with a constructive defense of the monergistic understanding of soteriology and posits that monergism—not synergism—articulates the most coherent understanding of salvation.

This volume has several positive aspects. The first is the length that Kirkpatrick goes to represent accurately and fairly the two soteric systems. One way that he accomplishes this fair representation is by consciously avoiding straw-man arguments that tend to run amok in this discussion. For example, Kirkpatrick is careful to establish that Semi-Pelagianism is a heresy (8, 130) and that synergism ought not automatically be equated to Semi-Pelagianism (130–32). While both Semi-Pelagianism and synergism affirm that man cooperates with God in the act of salvation, Semi-Pelagianism separates itself from synergism by affirming that man can initiate the first step in turning toward God–a view which was condemned in AD 529 at the Council of Orange (132). When monergists claim that synergism is or necessarily leads to Semi-Pelagianism, they inadvertently cut their own arguments off at the knees by constructing a straw-man. Kirkpatrick helpfully avoids this fallacy, which aids in his critique of the synergist position.

Kirkpatrick also refuses to succumb to the sweeping dismissals each system makes of the other. Instead, he is careful from the onset to explain the guiding principles of each system. He characterizes synergism, broadly speaking, as prioritizing God’s love and human freedom, while characterizing monergism as prioritizing God’s sovereign action and human depravity (11–12). This is not to say that synergists do not believe in God’s sovereignty, or that monergists do not believe in God’s love; rather, it shows that these systems prioritize certain aspects of the conversation over other aspects, for better or worse. Instead of stooping to unhelpful and unfair dismissals (like the dismissal he cites on page twelve wherein Norman Geisler, in support of synergism, states “God is not a divine rapist”), Kirkpatrick engages in specific issues in synergism and monergism–such as God’s prevenient grace–and evaluates each system on that issue. The reader is left with a sense that Kirkpatrick, though convinced of monergism, truly seeks to describe both sides fairly.

Another positive aspect of the volume is Kirkpatrick’s treatment of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is the doctrine which Kirkpatrick, citing Roger Olson, defines as “The enabling and assisting ability granted by God to humankind that overcomes the effects of sin to the sinful human will in order to allow a person to respond freely to salvation” (18). Any discussion of monergism and synergism will require a robust treatment of prevenient grace and its various implications, which Kirkpatrick provides in abundance. For example, Kirkpatrick notes that both synergists and monergists affirm prevenient grace–an argument that might surprise a monergist. What is in contention, though, between the two parties is the universal scope of prevenient grace. Does this grace work in the life of all sinners, in a universal sense, to undo the effects of the fall, or does this grace only work in those whom God has sovereignly ordained to be saved (118)? Kirkpatrick explains in his critique of the Arminian/Weslyian view of prevenient grace in chapter three that the notion that prevenient grace can have all of the positive aspects of regeneration (i.e., overcoming the effects of the fall) without bringing the new life that regeneration brings is both scripturally unsupported and theological problematic (121).

The volume does, however contain a few negative aspects. The first, and most notable problem with the volume, is that it is not the most comfortable read. Kirkpatrick notes in his preface that Monergism or Synergism is a revision of his PhD dissertation, and the fact that this volume’s genesis is a dissertation is readily apparent (xii). Kirkpatrick’s prose is often stiff, academic, and overly-precise. For example, while the contents of his various discussions on prevenient grace is great, it is often difficult or pedantic to get through. Kirkpatrick frequently restates the definition of prevenient grace throughout the discussion and constantly restates the movement of his argument, which often serve to distract the reader rather than guide the reader.

Another possible negative aspect is that Monergism or Synergism does not contain robust engagement with Scripture. That is not to say that there is no engagement with Scripture, but only that this volume is much more focused on the philosophical/theological arguments in the monergism vs. synergism discussion rather than the exegetical arguments. Certainly this is a valid and needed analysis of the subject, but the reader ought not approach the volume hoping to see in-depth interpretation of passages such as John 3.

Despite these negative aspects, Daniel Kirkpatrick’s Monergism or Synergism is a helpful contribution to this soteric conversation. Kirkpatrick fairly evaluates both systems, and successfully argues that synergism is left wanting. Anybody interested in this discussion—synergist or monergist—will benefit from this careful and nuanced work.

- Jacob D. Rainwater,
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Kansas City, Missouri

A Pastoral Rule for Today: Reviving an Ancient Practice. By John P. Burgess, Jerry Andrews, and Joseph D. Small. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019. Paperback, $20.00.

John P. Burgess serves as professor of Systematic Theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and he has served several churches as an ordained Presbyterian minister. Jerry Andrews is the Senior Pastor of First Presbyterian Church in San Diego, CA. Before retiring, Joseph D. Small was the director of the Office of Theology and Worship for the Presbyterian Church (USA). All three authors are connected to the PCUSA, and the impetus for this work came from a PCUSA initiative designed to “analyze the current situation of the church and to propose ways to strengthen the theological foundations of pastoral ministry” (ix).

A Pastoral Rule for Today is a call for pastors to “think about pastoral ministry and what lies at the core of the pastor’s vocation” (1). Pastors are often pulled in a host of different directions, and a constant temptation exists to let the immediate crowd out what is most important. These authors are suggesting that each pastor have a rule or standard by which he organizes his ministry in order to “give him an anchor for remaining spiritually steady and upright as he attends to everything else he has to do” (6). In order both to argue for the use of such a pastoral rule and to demonstrate what such a rule might entail, the authors explore seven major Christian leaders and the patterns or rules each had for his own ministry (7).

Chapter one deals with the theme of friendship in the life of Augustine of Hippo. Augustine’s life was greatly influenced by his friends both before and after conversion. After his conversion, Augustine began to see his friendships as part of God’s grace in his life. The intentional community Augustine formed for theological debate and discussion offers a pattern for the kind of accountability and encouragement needed to sustain pastors today. Chapter two addresses Benedict and his rules for monastic living, which has served Christians for hundreds of years. While many pastors are not bound to submit to a particular authority figure, as were these monks, the authors argue that pastors today could benefit from submitting themselves to other pastors in relationships of mutual accountability. Chapter three covers Gregory the Great and his emphasis on both service and holiness. The chapter offers a summary of Gregory’s own work, A Pastoral Rule, in which Gregory argued for a balance between the serious study of Scripture and humble service to the people a pastor is called to serve.

Pastors must first know what a church is before they can know how to minister as pastors. Chapter four summarizes Calvin’s views on the nature of the church and the nature of pastoral ministry. The chapter uses Calvin’s focus on a plurality of pastoral leadership to argue that “the ministry of pastoral care is in constant need of the wisdom of other pastors, and also in need of challenge and correction” (101). Chapter 5 covers John Wesley and his organization of church members into a series of interconnected groups. These groups were designed to be places where Christians could have honest, frank conversations, where they could ask searching questions about their faith, and where they could grow in holiness. While not neglecting the communal nature of pastoral ministry, John Henry Newman, the subject of chapter six, serves as a reminder that pastors must be committed to serious study. Newman thought that part of his vocation was “to think on behalf of the church” (132). Newman reminds the modern pastor that “regular study of Scripture is essential not just for Sunday preaching but also for pondering the ways of God in our everyday lives and those of the people around us” (140). Finally, chapter seven and its examination of Dietrich Bonhoeffer serves as one more reminder of the dire need for community in the life of the pastor. In Bonhoeffer, the authors saw “the incomparable value of Christians’ physical presence to each other” (145). The chapter overviews Bonhoeffer and the Christian community he helped form and highlights how that community helped sustain Bonhoeffer and others in the midst of an exceedingly difficult time.

Some pastors are more naturally comfortable engaging in the relational elements of pastoral ministry, while other pastors are more comfortable giving rigorous attention to the study of God’s Word. In chapter eight, “A Contemporary Pastoral Rule,” the authors conclude with their own rule, which they offer as a helpful measuring stick or guideline for faithful pastoral ministry. Their rule covers three areas: personal disciplines, personal conduct in ministry, and mutual encouragement and accountability. The rule is an attempt to balance the non-negotiable aspects of pastoral ministry, including personal devotion to prayer and study, holy living as an example for the church, and mutual accountability in the context of Christian community. This chapter is a very practical attempt to help pastors think through how they can implement these principles in their own ministries.

Two particular strengths of this book make it a worthy read for anyone engaged in pastoral ministry. First, the book offers a good introduction to the lives and writings of seven important historical figures. While necessarily brief, these introductions are engaging and informative and will likely spur the reader’s desire to learn more about each person. Second, the practical nature of this book is a great benefit for the pastor seeking ways to implement a pastoral rule in his own ministry. Each chapter closes with a section outlining how each historical figure can impact the pastor serving a church today. The concluding chapter pulls the various ideas from each historical figure together into a suggested resource for pastors seeking their own contemporary rule for pastoral ministry. While readers might not adopt any element of this book wholesale, the authors have meticulously sought to make their work both accessible and practical.

The main weakness of the book is its lack of interaction with the biblical foundations for pastoral ministry. The pastor who has a robust ecclesiology and a well-defined sense of his own biblical calling will find this work to be valuable supplement to other pastoral ministry books, but the new pastor seeking a biblical foundation for his ministry will need to consult other resources before engaging this book. The Southern Baptist reader will note that the authors’ PCUSA background has obviously influenced their writing, from the less surprising use of “she” in reference to pastors (6) to the more subtle and perplexing reference to sexual orientation as a protected class “whose representatives have privileged voices” that need to be heard (159). Southern Baptist pastors should not be surprised to find points of disagreement with PCUSA authors dealing with historical figures from a range of denominational backgrounds, but the pastor looking for a good introduction to the lives and writings of several important historical figures, and the pastor desiring careful reflection on how he might better organize and prioritize his ministry will be well served by A Pastoral Rule for Today.

- Charles A. Ray III,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Psalms, Volume 2. NIV Application Commentary. By W. Dennis Tucker Jr. and Jamie A. Grant. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018. 1072 pages. Hardcover, $64.99.

As noted in the work’s title, this volume is a continuation of Gerald Wilson’s analysis of the Psalter in Psalms, Volume 1 (2002) of the NIV Application Commentary. Given the prominence of Wilson’s pioneering work The Editing of the Psalter (Society of Biblical Literature, 1985), no better scholar could have been requested to write the first volume of this series. However, Wilson was unable to complete the second volume and went to be with the Lord in 2005.

As such, W. Dennis Tucker Jr. and Jamie Grant represent two evangelical scholars who are equally adequate to articulate the vast complexity of the Psalter for a “modern context” (7). More so, in their preface, they seek to both “receive the heritage that comes with these texts and to give a faithful rendering of them for the current generation” (13). In light of this, they continued to follow in the steps of Wilson by noting that his “influence is keenly felt throughout” their commentary even while they continue to purse new developments in Psalter research (14). Evidence of this can be found in the first page of the introduction.

Tucker and Grant begin Psalms, Volume 2 by encouraging their readers to read Wilson’s introduction before their own. This is because Wilson spent a number of pages explaining “how Hebrew parallelism works” (19). However, Wilson did not explain two main issues related to the Psalter: 1) its canonical arrangement and 2) its broad theological concepts. Therefore, the introduction to Psalms, Volume 2 only addresses these two issues.

In this introduction, Tucker (the sole author of this section) argues that the overall design of the Psalter shows signs of intentional composition because of the various poetic collections and because of the endings of the five different books. The collections appear to have been placed together for a variety of reasons. First, some psalms were placed next to each in light of their association to various personal names: David (3–41; 51–72; 108–10; 138–145), Korah (42–49; 84–85; 87–88), and Asaph (50; 73–83). Second, other psalms were placed next to each other for thematic reasons: Enthronement Psalms (93, 95–99), Elohistic Psalms (42–83), Song of Ascents (120–34), and Hallelujah Psalms (111–18; 146–50). From here, Tucker notes that the Hebrew Psalter is also divided into five books:

Book 1 (1–41)

Book 2 (42–72)

Book 3 (73–89)

Book 4 (90–106)

Book 5 (107–50)

Given the fact that the first four books end with the word “amen” and that this word only “occurs in each of [these] four doxologies but nowhere else in the Psalter,” Tucker argues for “editorial intentionality in shaping the conclusion” of these books (23). However, Tucker balances this statement by suggesting that only specific psalms were placed in “strategic locations” within the Psalter (24). Overall, Tucker views the Psalter as moving from an emphasis on personal lament towards a communal call to praise God (29).

Following the spectrum presented by John Calvin, Tucker argues that the “book of Psalms demonstrates a remarkable consistency in its theological confession concerning God, humanity, and the interaction between the two” (30). Thus, Tucker identifies the main theological categories in the Psalter to revolve around God as King, Creator, Refuge, and the Great King of Zion as well as around the realities of human life. In all, Tucker notes that the Psalter is “both God’s word to humanity and humanity’s word to God” (36).

The rest of the commentary (over 1006 pages) provides an analysis of nearly half of the psalms found within the Psalter. Given that Psalms, Volume 1 ended on Ps 72, one expects Psalms, Volume 2 to begin on Ps 73. Also, the table of contents makes the reader aware of the fact that Grant provides the commentary for Ps 73–106 and Tucker provides the commentary for Ps 107–150.

As noted in the series introduction, Tucker and Grant analyze each psalm my means of three main sections: Original Meanings, Bridging Context, and Contemporary Significance. Roughly these sections seek to answer three distinct questions: 1) what did each psalm mean when to its original audience, 2) what is the core truth found in each psalm, and 3) what does each psalm teach us today? An example how these scholars examine the Psalter can be found in Grant’s commentary on Ps 93.

He begins by noting that Ps 93 is a “brief poem of great power” belonging to a collection of psalms (Pss 93–100) that present a “metaphoric presentation” of the “absolute authority of God” (372). Because of the controversial nature of the first two words of the psalm (Yahweh malak), the Grant quickly discuss the various views concerning the English translation of this phrase. After agreeing with the translation found within the NIV, Grant expound upon this within the rest of his commentary. Overall, the he concludes that the purpose of Ps 93 is to encourage its readers to remember that “God is in control regardless of how it may appear” (381, italics original) and because of this God’s word can serve as a “reliable guide by which to live” (383). Interestingly, Grant makes a connection between the usage of the word sea in Ps 93 and its purpose in book of Revelation (see 378, 383). He then concludes by agreeing with James Mays (see The Lord Reigns, 1994) that Ps 93 is “an act of imagination. Refocusing on the powerful, sovereign rule of our God has given and gives believers throughout all generations courage to face an uncertain world” (385).

I can only quibble regarding my assessment. The accomplishment of Tucker and Grant in this volume is astounding. However, I would not recommend this volume without purchasing Wilson’s volume as well. Also, this volume contains a minimal number of charts and tables which can be contrasted with C. Hassell Bullock’s volume on the same psalms found in the Teach the Text Commentary Series (see Psalms, Volume 2: Psalms 73–150, 2017). While Bullock’s volume does not contain as much textual commentary, it does have a much higher concentration of tables and charts. Therefore, Tucker and Grant’s volume, as noted in the series introduction, is highly recommended for those doing academic study and might be difficult to manage otherwise.

- Ron Lindo,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Reformation 500: How the Greatest Revival Since Pentecost Continues to Shape the World Today. Edited by Ray Van Neste and J. Michael Garrett. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016. 272 pages. Paperback, $29.99.

The recovery of church history is an important trend in contemporary, Protestant theology. While Protestants are deeply indebted to the orthodoxy refined early in church history, there is much in subsequent history with which Protestants disagree. In the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, however, Protestant convictions regained significant influence in Christendom. The effects of the Reformation are not confined to the sixteenth century, however. Instead, as this book argues, the Protestant Reformation continues to shape the modern believer’s worldview in many significant ways. To highlight these areas of influence, Ray Van Neste and J. Michael Garrett, who serve alongside one another as the director and assistant director of the Ryan Center for Biblical Studies at Union University, bring together a wide array of professors, pastors, and scholars. Together, they persuasively argue that the Protestant Reformation is worthy of celebration for three reasons: the Reformation refocused the church on the essential elements of the faith, reminds believers of their historical setting, and shapes the way that its heirs understand the world (2).

Unfortunately, the seventeen essays in the book do not always have an explicit connection to all three purposes of the book. For example, in the first essay, Gavin Richardson examines the pre-Reformation sentiments of the Lollards. While containing a helpful discussion of Lollard positions based on the sermon Of Mynystris, the primary goal of the chapter is to show that the ideas of the Reformation did not originate in Wittenberg. Indeed, anti-papal passions were stirring long before Luther and with groups other than the Lollards. Richardson’s argument is forceful and important. He reminds readers that history is a powerful force shaping the world. Just as 1517 was not the dawn of Reformation ideas, the issues modern Christians face are not new. Similarly, Richardson’s chapter hints toward the emphasis that the Reformers would later place on the word of God. However, though these themes directly connect to the thesis of the book, they receive relatively little attention in the chapter. Thus, one weakness of the book is that the authors sometimes fail to make an explicit connection between their diverse topics and the central thesis of the entire book (11–30).

This book is truly an interdisciplinary work. Indeed, the diversity of topics covered suggest the rhetorical point that the Reformation is a watershed moment, not only for the church but for all of Western civilization. Within this menagerie of topics, expected discussions appear. For example, of all the Reformers, Martin Luther receives the most attention with four of the seventeen essays devoted to Luther’s thought and legacy. Similarly, the impact of the Reformation on preaching, the Lord’s Supper, and worship practices appear. While not intended as an introduction to Reformation theology, this book does survey some of the main contours of Protestant thought.

Alongside the well-worn paths of Reformation studies lies one of the unique features of this book: discussions of topics that do not usually appear in theological books. For example, Christopher Mathews contributes an enlightening essay in which he discusses the impact of the Reformation on music. He argues that the Reformers valued music as a means to teach correct doctrine, unify the church, and engage the congregation in worship (140–43). Additionally, one essay argues that the Reformation reshaped art. The book even contains examples of Reformation art (179–82).

The breadth of topics covered is a key strength of this book. In an increasingly post-Christian culture, the evangelical church has rightly sounded the call for pastor-theologians. Christians recognize that to interact with the trends in American society, the local church needs pastors who can apply the Christian worldview to a myriad of situations never encountered by the apostles. While Paul never had to address transgender teenagers in the youth group, the pastor of the local church may face this thorny challenge. To think within a Christian worldview, church leaders must first see that Christianity is a paradigm for understanding all of reality. With the authors of this book, the church must recognize the role that theological convictions play in the goal of the local church, in the selection of appropriate music for Sunday worship, and in the way that Christians relate to an increasingly secular culture, to name but a few issues. Though not the sole solution, this book cogently argues that the legacy of the Reformation shapes modern life.

The greatest strength of this book is its wide variety of topics. The authors of the essays within the book discuss subject matter that rarely finds treatment in theological studies. By showing how the Reformation shapes various aspects of the modern world, the authors of the book remind Christians that their theological convictions shape their entire lives. Amid such a wide variety of topics, some authors occasionally lose explicit focus on the central thesis of the book. This problem notwithstanding, I recommend Reformation 500 as a valuable resource with the hope that the book will help pastors and church leaders examine the way that the Reformation shapes the modern world.

- Nicholas Maricle,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Retrieving Eternal Generation. Edited by Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017. Paperback, $34.99.

Evangelical concern, both broad and deep, birthed Fred Sanders and Scott Swain’s edited volume Retrieving Eternal Generation. Broadly across the evangelical disciplines, commitment to eternal generation eroded with effects deep within the architecture of biblical studies, systematic theology, and evangelical worldview and philosophy. For that reason, the Evangelical Theological Society formed the Trinitarian Theology Consultation, whose papers from the annual and regional meetings comprise this volume (as well as a few papers solicited specially for publication). In a volume whose provenance dates back to the papers of society proceedings, much can be assumed by the scholars that cannot later be assumed by a large cross-section of the readership (pastors and practitioners).

Sanders and Swain argue that the “theological grammar” by which the orthodox, historic church has confessed the triune God has many key components that, both perceptibly and imperceptibly, guard the integrity of the whole and prevent significant aberration. This precise danger, they believe, calls for retrieving eternal generation.

The chapters of part 1, “Biblical Reasoning,” will receive special comment below; their scriptural treatment will prove most useful for the practice of ministry; for a doctrine such as eternal generation, consulting the scripture index relative to any biblical chapter and verse will prove helpful to avoid certain pitfalls in preaching and patterns of speech. Part 2, “Historical Witnesses,” includes Lewis Ayres on Origen (the earliest robust patristic writer on eternal generation), Keith Johnson on Augustine, Chad van Dixhoorn on the Westminster Confession, Christina Larsen on Edwards, and Michael Allen on Barth. Part 3, “Contemporary Statements,” broadens the picture: Mark Makin sketches in cogent philosophical models of eternal generation, and Fred Sanders reveals the doctrine’s interdependence with the doctrine of salvation. Last, Joshua Malone explicates and details what is implicit in the whole project: the doctrine of eternal generation contributes to the integrity and clarity of the doctrine of the Trinity as a whole.

Chapter 1, Scott Swain’s own chapter, catalogues Scripture’s two ways of speaking about God—as an undivided essence and triune persons. Chapters 2 and 3 both function as Old Testament case studies; in the former, Matthew Emerson shows that primarily what drives the distinction in traditional interpretations of Wisdom in Prov 8 (amenable to eternal generation) and modern interpretations (not so amenable) are prior hermeneutical commitments that themselves either tend to receive the whole canon as divine self-disclosure or reject it as such. Mark Gignillat’s purpose is similar in the following chapter on Mic 5:2, in which he emphasizes the more theological interpretations of the tradition and the “metaphysical weight” of scripture’s voice. Don Carson’s long and ongoing interpretive relationship with John 5:26 are on full display as he traces its reception history (even his own reception of it) and brings new data and argument into the account; further, he comments on the variety of scripture’s patterns of describing the Trinity’s inner life—a fact that demands our pause, patience, and care in speaking.

The significant chapter of Charles Lee Irons overturns a half-century consensus that read the Johannine monogenes as “only unique” rather than “only begotten Son.” Iron’s tool for the task is the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae (TLG), a digital compendium of all Greek texts from Homer until the fall of Byzantium. Monogenes is well represented across the full Greek corpus, and Irons effectively vindicates the traditional rendering of “only begotten” and describes how it became a favorite title for Christ among a wide range of church fathers.

Madison Pierce’s chapter, “Hebrews 1 and the Son Begotten ‘Today,’” develops intertextual references for the begetting of the Son “today” in Heb 1, while still attending to the text itself, avoiding parallelomania. In fact, Pierce’s purpose is partly to attenuate the full reading of a context like Ps 2 into the quotation’s echo. Pierce’s method, “prosopological” (or “prosoponic”) exegesis, owes much to the seminal work of Matthew Bates, The Hermeneutics of Apostolic Proclamation (Baylor, 2012), and the method is gaining purchase among New Testament scholars. Such exegesis is character or person-centered, can be traced to Greco-Roman rhetoric, and is characteristic of the New Testament authors when their burning hermeneutical question asks, “Who can be the supposed character behind this Old Testament text?” Pierce ably demonstrates this mode of interpretation, and prosopological exegesis represents the useful deployment (and slight modification) in this generation of the strong emphasis on “echoes of the Old Testament in the New.” For this reason, preachers and Bible teachers will benefit from her presentation as they gain names for these instincts and are prepared for the literature that the prosopological method is sure to multiply. Pierce’s use of Jesus himself as an exemplar of this reading is most helpful: Jesus points to Ps 110, asking who this “Lord” may be that David calls “Lord,” developing a character-centered reading of the psalm. To meet her purpose, Pierce has only to develop the meaning of “today” in Hebrews in order to relate “Today I have begotten you” to the doctrine of eternal generation. The author of Hebrews uses such language eight times, often precisely with the sense of “forever” or “always.” In this way, she concludes Heb 1 holds forth the eternal generation of the Son.

Kendall Soulen’s chapter simply organizes vocabulary yet still contains surprising creativity. Soulen shows how the scripture’s vocabulary of God is threefold: personal proper name (Yahweh), kinship terms (e.g., Father), and, nouns (e.g., God, light, king, etc.). This manner of speaking is grounded in the Old Testament and continues in the New, where such terms apply to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (though using for Yahweh the common circumlocutions of the Second Temple period, such as Lord, Name, and Light). Soulen applies his point to eternal generation: “While scripture speaks of eternal generation in many concrete ways, these can all be distinguished into three chief domains according to the kind of nouns in play: personal proper name, kinship term, or common noun.” This schematic allows Soulen space to categorize the church’s language regarding the (1) generation of the Son, (2) the procession of the Word and (3) the “gift of the Name” (a category he adds).

The book aims to retrieve eternal generation for a new generation and the exegetical emphasis of part 1, together with its index will make it useful not only for the shelves of research libraries but for the study of any astute Bible teacher.

- Nathan Sundt,
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Louisville, Kentucky

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. By Yuval Noah Harari. New York: Harper, 2015. 414 pages. Paperback, $22.99.

Five years since its publication in English, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Israeli historian Yuval Harari remains an immensely popular nonfiction work. Texts on world history do not typically grip general audiences, and narrating the entirety of human life in 414 pages is an ambitious task. Sapiens’ crisp prose and engaging style has won a broad fanbase, though Harari’s ventures into philosophical and theological territory have rankled critics.

The book divides into four parts, designated for shifts that inaugurated a new epoch in human history: the “Cognitive Revolution” (ca. 70,000 year ago), “Agricultural Revolution” (ca. 12,000 years ago), “Unification of Humankind” (2,250 BC–500 AD), and “Scientific Revolution” (1500 AD–the present). Sapiens begins with the Big Bang 13.5 billion years ago and is succeeded by a swift Darwinian narrative. “The story of our universe,” he writes, “is physics, chemistry and biology” (4). The theory of evolution, claims Harari, ipso facto precludes the idea of creation (110). In a later chapter, he argues that scientists have traced the inner workings of human behavior to “hormones, genes, and synapses” (236). Harari does not engage historic and contemporary arguments against atheism, and he glosses philosophical implications inherent in naturalism. For the author, anything presently lacking an empirical answer—human consciousness, for example—will likely have an answer in the future (252).

Sapiens’ materialistic edifice suggests a mechanistic narrative, but such is not the case, thanks to “imagined realities.” Homo Sapiens, claims Harari, developed the unique ability to speak of things that do not exist and were thus able to unite under common myths during the Cognitive Revolution. Such stories are of course, objectively false: “There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, no justice outside the common imagination of human beings” (28). It would seem that nihilism is unavoidable. However, only four pages later, Harari attempts to validate the collective acceptance of such myths. Imagined realities are not lies because “unlike lying, an imagined reality is something that everyone believes in, and as long as this communal belief exists, the imagined reality exerts force in the world” (32). The truth value of imagined realities comes from their apparent utility. Despite reaffirmations of naturalism, imagined realities prove to be the very substance of human life, whether it be economics, politics, ethics, or religion.

Harari reaches the crescendo of Sapiens in the Scientific Revolution. He explains the success of modern science derives from a methodology of doubt. Homo Sapiens discovered valuable insights about the natural world precisely because they did not consult traditional authorities such as religious texts. With these considerations in mind, it would seem that religion has no place in the modern world. On the contrary, Harari concedes that the opposite is true. Value judgments such as ‘What is important?’ and ‘What is good?’ do not have scientific answers. “Only religions and ideologies seek to answer such questions” (273). Profound implications for science logically follow. By inherent methodological limitations, science is incapable of determining applications for its discoveries and thus can only flourish “in alliance with some religion or ideology” (274). Ironically, religion—though a figment of the collective imagination—is eminently important for progress. At this juncture, it would seem appropriate for Harari to discuss why the most fundamental questions of human existence demand religious answers, and second, how a society discriminates between religious claims. Unfortunately, he does not.

Sapiens’ conclusion juxtaposes technological apocalypticism with a curiously optimistic view of human flourishing. The present time, writes Harari, “is the first time in history that the world is dominated by peace-loving elite–politicians, business people, intellectuals and artists who genuinely see war as both evil and avoidable” (372). One wonders if the author would not revise this statement today.

In an ironic twist that Harari acknowledges, the Darwinian doctrine of natural selection which accounted for biological complexity for 4 billion years is now being eclipsed by intelligent design. Humans possess an increasing ability to recreate themselves and/or other beings via biological engineering, cyborg engineering, or the engineering of inorganic life (399). Harari counsels contemporary Homo Sapiens to “influence the direction scientists are taking,” for humans may soon be able to engineer their very desires. Thus, the fundamental question is not ‘What do we want to become?’ but ‘What do we want to want?’ (414). These weighty words should give room for pause.

The opening chapter of Sapiens, titled “An animal of no significance,” contrasts sharply with the afterword (a plug for Harari’s subsequent book, Homo Deus), “The animal that became God.” It seems difficult to believe that either of these claims is true. If Homo Sapiens are only animals, then it is unlikely that this book would have been written. If they are God, then why is Harari’s closing question one of uncertainty about our essence and our future?

As a materialist account of history, Sapiens oscillates between unbound freedom—“We study history . . . to understand that our present situation is neither natural nor inevitable” (241)—and biological determinism, “There is only a blind evolutionary process, devoid of any purpose” (109). Sapiens exemplifies modern secularism’s inability to reconcile the hard realities of naturalism with an insatiable pursuit of deification through science. Devoid of any teleological structure, human history in Sapiens is a powerful, yet rudderless vessel, moving rapidly but without a destination.

- Ryan Rindels,
Gateway Seminary, Ontario, California;
First Baptist Church, Sonoma, California

Scripture and Counseling: God’s Word for Life in a Broken World. Edited by Robert Kellemen and Jeff Forrey. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014. 480 pages. Hardcover, $32.99.

Robert Kelleman serves as the executive director of the Biblical Counseling Coalition and the Vice President of Institutional Development and the Chair of the Biblical Counseling Department at Crossroads Bible College in Indiana. Kelleman has years of pastoral experience. Jeff Forrey is the Chair of the Department of Biblical Counseling at the Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary in Indiana. Kelleman and Forrey are the editors of Scripture and Counseling.

Scripture and Counseling is an edited work produced by the Biblical Counseling Coalition. Kelleman states one of the purposes of the books is that the readers would retrieve a trust in “God’s word for real-life issues” and to assist the reader in being competent in utilizing scripture for the intricate issues of life (13). In order to accomplish this task the book is divided into two parts and twenty chapters. The first part is labeled “How We View the Bible for Life in a Broken World” and the second part is titled “How We Use the Bible for Life in a Broken World.” The editors use the Appendixes to introduce the readers to the doctrine, vision, mission, and passion statements of the Biblical Counseling Coalition.

R. Albert Mohler wrote the Foreword and warns counselors about “mixing orthodox theology with secular counseling models” (9). Kevin DeYoung and Pat Quinn use the introduction to explain the authoritativeness and the sufficiency of scripture. They emphasize the importance of “shared convictions” among counselors, pastors, and the congregations (27). Share convictions are essential to developing a cultural of “one-anothering” inside a church (27).

In the first chapter, Kevin Carson discusses the relevance of the bible to people’s lives and to counseling. He does this by answering two questions about the bible’s content and character (31). Carson explores the relevance of God’s word to life give believers confidence in every situation (45). In chapter 2, God’s word is introduced as “the desirable law,” “the direct trainer,” “the divine scalpel,” and “the definitive authority” for living as Christian by Paul Tautges and Steve Vairs (49). In chapter 3, Jeffery Forrey assists the readers in discerning how believers should view science and its relationship to general revelation. He states science is vital because the bible is not comprehensive (71). In chapter 4, Forrey continues his analysis of science by attempting to define psychology and demonstrate how it relates to biblical counseling.

In chapter 5, Jeremy Pierre argues that scripture is sufficient to help us understand God’s design for humans and their experiences (98). He contrasts the authority of scripture and the authority of psychological theories (101). Robert Jones, in chapter 6, argues that the Jesus should be the center of biblical counseling. He states the cross and resurrection of Jesus is “our motivation for growth and change” and the job of biblical counselor is to give Jesus to people who are needy (116). In chapter 7, Bob Kelleman, claims that soul care has been part of the pastoral role for centuries. He makes a case of biblical psychology, which is the foundation of biblical counseling. Sam Williams, in Chapter 8, suggests how Christians should view their bodies, how they should think about mental disorders and medications. Ernie Baker and Howard Eyrich, in chapter 9, argue that “counseling systems are philosophical belief systems” and mixing these systems with the bible have the potential to become syncretism (161). This concludes section one of the book and begins section two.

Bob Kelleman in chapters 10 and 11 guides the reader through the a biblical theology of counseling. In chapter 12, Garrett Higbee explains how a church can a biblical counseling church and the resources God has supplied to the church. He states God has given us each other, His Spirit, and His Word as resources for bible counseling. Higbee, in chapter 13, instructs the readers on how to create an “uncommon community” and equip small group leaders for biblical counseling (245). Jonathan Holmes and Lilly Park in chapter 14 expand on what it means to speak the truth in love by offering expansive explanations of speaking, truth, and love along with offering practical advice. Brad Hambrick discusses in chapter 15 the competencies of a biblical counselor, possible certifications, and issues a challenge to them to “be excellent” (299).

In chapter 16, Jeremy Lelek explains how counselors should prepare themselves to walk a person through depression, how to make deposits that “generate biblical hope” (306), and practical ways to handle a person contemplating suicide. John Henderson uses chapter 17 to explain how to use biblical narratives in counseling and he suggest nine elements that can assist counselors in using the stories in the Bible. Depak Reju addressing the subject of wisdom literature in counseling in chapter 18. Specifically, he describes how the wisdom literature could be beneficial for martial counseling. In chapter 19, Rob Green demonstrates how the gospel can be a useful resource in counseling. Heath Lambert uses chapter 20 to explain how the epistles can be used to serve a person with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). The book concludes with Randy Patten sharing wisdom from his experience from being a biblical counselor.

Overall, the authors have offered a great resource for those who seek to serve the body of Christ. They offer sufficient arguments for the sufficiency and the authority of scripture as it relates to counseling God’s people through difficult circumstances. The book contains practical advice on how to use the whole counsel of God to address the effects of sin on God’s people. The authors seem to know their audience and their concerns.

One weakness of this book is the assumption that those who utilize psychological interventions more readily in their practice of counseling doubt the sufficiency of scripture. Several of the authors offer truth about mental illnesses, but the treatment of them seems to be simplistic. The book needs more insights about the body throughout it to combat the development of a gnostic theology about the bodies God has given us. In conclusion, the authors challenge all Christian counselors to have a robust theology to address the needs of God’s people and to adequately use psychological insights in counseling with the hope of souls receiving healing that comes from Jesus Christ.

- DeAron Washington,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Sexuality, Gender, and the Church: A Christian Response in the New Cultural Landscape. By J. Matthew Pinson, Matthew Steven Bracey, Matthew McAffee, and Michael A. Oliver. Nashville, TN: Welch College Press, 2016. 256 Pages. Hardcover, $19.99.

Over the last decade, the church is been confronted increasingly by a variety of issues in ethics, most notably homosexuality, same sex marriage, and transgender claims. This volume attempts to address these issues compassionately but firmly from a conservative evangelical Christian perspective. The volume is written specifically for the National Association of Free Will Baptists denomination, and all four of its contributors teach at Welch College within that tradition. However, its articles reference a broader conservative evangelical Christian tradition, and is endorsed by evangelicals from several traditions, including the foreword written by Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The articles address these issues from four perspectives – Christianity engaging culture (Pinson), legal/historical precedents (Bracy), Biblical/theological issues (McAffee), and psychological issues (Oliver). Each of these authors except Oliver contribute two articles. This book is designed to be read and used by groups within the church. To assist in these group studies, there are discussion questions at the end of each chapter, a helpful glossary of terms, and a number of resources identified for further exploration. The book also proposes several options for a church policy regarding marriage and sexuality, which might help clarify and protect a church legally if they were sued for practicing their beliefs. Some resolutions and confessional statements by the National Association of Free Will Baptists are also included, which might proffer helpful language for other churches or denominations.

Pinson calls for a church engaged in culture, and yet uncompromising about biblical teachings regarding human sexuality. He describes an appropriate stance regarding religious liberty. Bracy outlines key court cases, particularly Obergefell v. Hodges, which have significantly changed the cultural landscape. He describes how Christian liberty aligns with biblical principles, and addresses practical but difficult questions such as, “Should a believer attend a same sex marriage?” even in one’s own family. Although all the articles draw upon biblical/theological resources, McAffee’s articles give focused attention to these issues. He draws upon a number of Scriptures, but most heavily upon God making persons as male and female (in addressing transgender persons), and Jesus’ describing marriage as male and female becoming one flesh (in addressing same sex marriage). Oliver provides practical counsel about counseling a friend or child who feels attracted to the same sex, helping them toward liberation from this perspective.

The contributors to Sexuality, Gender, and the Church are to be commended for addressing a thorny but vitally relevant issue confronting the church. Their contributions are gracious, biblical, and practical. Recommended for a church Bible study.

- Steve W. Lemke,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Shining Like the Sun: A Biblical Theology of Meeting God Face to Face. By David H. Wenkel. Wooster, Ohio: Weaver Book Company, 2016. 163 pages. Paperback, $15.99.

David H. Wenkel serves as pastor of DaySpring Bible Church in Des Plaines, Illinois. He received both MA and ThM degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and his PhD from the University of Aberdeen. Other recent works by Wenkel include Joy in Luke-Acts: The Intersection of Rhetoric, Narrative, and Emotion (Paternoster, 2015), Coins as Cultural Texts in the World of the New Testament (T&T Clark, 2016), Jesus’ Crucifixion Beatings and the Book of Proverbs (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), and The Second London Confession of 1646: A Modern Version for the Church Today (Ambassador International, 2017).

Wenkel has aptly surveyed the Old and New Testament theme of encountering God. Shining Like the Sun highlights the simple truth, “that those who meet God face to face are changed” (1). Because no exegetical resource covers this important theological reality, Wenkel seeks to provide a study that helps cultivate personal holiness by noting places in Scripture where characters have undergone transformation through direct interaction with God (2). Wenkel uses biblical theology as his method, engaging historical background and literary elements where necessary. He affirms throughout his work the thesis that “a discernible thread runs through the tapestry of Scripture in which those who encounter the God of Israel face to face will be changed” (9).

The first four chapters cover these face-to-face experiences in the Old Testament narratives of Adam and Eve, Jacob’s wrestling with a peculiar man in the darkness, Moses at Mt. Sinai, and the corporate dimension of Israel beholding God’s presence through the worship context of the tabernacle. Chapters 5–7 highlight face-to-face moments with God throughout Israel’s history, first occurring with Judges Gideon and Sampson, second in the categorical dimensions of encountering God in the Psalms, and finally the withdraw of God’s countenance upon his people throughout the major and minor prophets. Wenkel’s New Testament assessment encompasses the last four chapters covering the face of God in Jesus Christ, the Mount of Transfiguration, the new covenant church, and the culmination of Christ’s glory among his people within the new heavens and new earth.

As a foundation for his study, Wenkel establishes that being created in the image of God grants human beings the capacity to reflect God’s glory both internally and externally. The inward encounter of God in Jesus Christ necessarily entails the outward physical result of his manifest presence through his people, by virtue of the power of his Holy Spirit. Throughout the study, Wenkel concludes that though creation has been marred by sin, “God’s redemptive plan allows his people to once again have this face-to-face intimacy with him” (14).

Wenkel focuses his study on examples revealing that “the human body is made in the image of God and is therefore uniquely capable of physically embodying one’s relationship with God” (30). God’s grace is demonstrated in the story of Adam and Eve, though sin entered the first family and attempted to destroy fellowship with God. The story of Jacob points to God’s redemptive agenda in the re-naming of Jacob as Israel, when an angelic figure wrestled with Jacob in his own struggle to be blessed by God. Moses’s encounter with God, in his effort to see God’s glory, brings Moses face-to-face with the One who redeems his wayward people, Israel. Concerning the priestly system and the blessing of God’s name upon his people (Num 6:22–27), Wenkel notes, “it was his presence alone that could preserve them in the wilderness” (42). As God’s people entered the Promised Land, the time of the Judges shows the struggle of “idolatry and sin,” as God raised up characters like Gideon and Sampson to “lead the nation back to God” (51). The Psalms are used categorically to highlight “a personal dimension to the desire to experience YHWH’s personal presence as described by his shining face” (58). However, the exilic period in the context of the prophets yields the dimension of God’s “purification and salvation of Israel through judgement” (82).

As Wenkel’s study transitions to the New Testament revelation of God in Jesus, he points to the Trinitarian theology found in the Gospel of John, which teaches that though God cannot be seen, “the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained him” (John 1:18 NASB). Wenkel highlights the event of the Transfiguration to note that “Jesus is the New Moses that fulfills the role of the prophet who arises out of Israel and speaks the words of YHWH as Moses did” (103). Thus, the ascension of Jesus facilitates the ability of the New Testament church to meet God face-to-face in a way that is “spiritual rather than physical and is experienced through prayer” (106). Wenkel ends his study with the future joy, when God’s people “dwell with God’s presence forever in the new heavens and new earth” (121).

Wenkel’s biblical theology of encountering God face-to-face achieves a helpful and most appropriate thematic study of what Scripture reveals about God’s redemptive purposes for his people. The notion of being transformed into Christlikeness is founded in the reflection of the glory of God as he is encountered. Not only can this example of biblical theology be used among theological students as supplemental reading, but its content is readable for those within the church congregation who wish to delve deeply into the implications of being created in the image of God. Wenkel’s aim in providing a theological example for deepening personal intimacy with God will remain a high standard for studies of its kind.

- Kevin A Cox,
Calvary New Orleans,
Metairie, Louisiana

Surviving and Thriving in Seminary: An Academic and Spiritual Handbook. By H. Daniel Zacharias and Benjamin K. Forrest. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017. 197 pages. Paperback, $17.99.

H. Daniel Zacharias is assistant professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia, Canada. He has published other works on New Testament Greek and the Gospel of Matthew. Benjamin K. Forrest is the associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Liberty University and is an associate professor of Christian Education at the same institution. He has published works on Christian leadership, worship, and preaching.

The main purpose of Surviving and Thriving in Seminary is to “not only help you understand the reality of what you are getting yourself into, but also to equip you with the skills to succeed–spiritually, relationally, and academically” (1). In order to accomplish this goal, the authors focus on three major areas to help students: preparation for seminary, managing time and energy while in seminary, and study skills and tools needed to succeed.

The first section of the book considers what type of mental, spiritual, and relational preparation is needed to attend seminary. They focus on two areas of mental preparation. First, they consider the unique intersection of education and deeply held beliefs that are unique to seminary education. Unlike doctors who attend medical school, seminary students are studying the Bible and theology; two subjects about which they both know things and have strong beliefs. Part of the mental preparation for seminary is simply realizing that there is going to be contact with different ideas that may challenge a new student’s beliefs. Also, unlike a student’s previous study of the Bible in the church, seminary calls students to critically analyze deeply held beliefs. The authors encourage their readers to realize this at the outset and prepare their minds to humbly interact and consider charitably their ideas from their professors and textbooks.

The second part of preparing the mind is preparing for the study of biblical languages. Zacharias and Forrest encourage their readers not to shy away from the languages but realize their importance, not only for academics but also for ministry. They also provide four key steps to prepare for biblical languages: learn English grammar, learn how languages work, purchase and preview textbooks early, and learn that language’s alphabet before the first day of class.

The remainder of the first section focuses on preparing for spiritual life and how to prepare for family life while in seminary. Regarding the first, they encourage their readers to maintain the spiritual disciplines while in seminary and to avoid the temptation to replace devotional time with study. Regarding the second, they provide a list of ways to stay connected with family (especially spouses and children) during seminary.

The second section of the work primarily focuses on how to manage time while working toward a seminary degree. Succeeding at seminary (i.e., completing the degree) is largely on the student’s shoulders. Anyone considering seminary should take responsibility for this at the beginning and map out their degree before they begin. Students will also need to learn how to manage their time, their health, and any ministries that they might be involved in at their local church. Those called to seminary must figure out how to manage their time. In this section, Zacharias and Forrest provide sound advice on how to succeed.

The final section focuses on how to flourish in the academic tasks they will learn in seminary. They cover research skills, writing, and using the right tools (e.g., Bible and note-taking software) that are unique to seminary education. The book ends with several appendices that discuss what to consider when choosing a seminary, paying for seminary, as well as a section for spouses of seminary students.

There are a few drawbacks to the book that are specifically related to certain demographics that are growing in seminaries in the United States. The first demographic relates to distance students, or the growth in online education. In the appendix devoted to choosing a seminary, there is a brief mention concerning online education and why you might choose a residential or online format. The main reasons to choose online education include being a pastor of a church or being the family’s primary bread winner (169–70). However, in choosing a seminary for online education, a new student should consider if the institution is properly equipped to offer online education. The book would be strengthened by a chapter that provided information on what is needed for online education and the services offered by top online schools. Areas to address include the computer software required to view lectures and whether the institution’s library is equipped to support distance education.

Single adults are another demographic that need attention. In their chapter, “Preparing Your Family,” they write, “While we spend significant time addressing how to prepare spouses for seminary and how to encourage them throughout, we acknowledge that some of you don’t have a spouse. We still think this chapter will be valuable” (49). Why? “You will know married people in your ministry and go to class with married peers. Some of the information in this chapter is also transferable to other relationships, such as with your parents, grandparents, your nieces and nephews, or the kids in your youth group whom you are mentoring” (49–50). Indeed, this chapter has some transferable application to the single life. But single people have unique issues in seminary. Since singles can make up a significant portion of a school’s population (perhaps 10%–35%), a section concerning single life in seminary would meet a need that is not often addressed in similar resources.

Despite these two drawbacks, there is much that is valuable in the work. First, in their chapter on “Preparing your Family,” much of Forrest’s own doctoral research is brought to light to help facilitate a good relationship with a spouse during seminary. He lists some of the benefits that seminary spouses have from being married to a seminary student.

Perhaps the greatest strength of the book is the first section, which focuses on preparation for seminary. Helping students think about their expectations for their seminary experience can aid them and help them avoid certain pitfalls. These benefits are worth the price of the book. Any pastor who knows someone thinking about seminary would do well to put this book in their hands.

- Dougald W. McLaurin III,
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Wake Forest, North Carolina

Teaching Across Cultures: Contextualizing Education for Global Mission. By James E. Plueddemann. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2018. 168 pages. Paperback, $20.00.

James Plueddemann, author of Teaching Across Cultures, serves as professor of Mission and Intercultural Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has taught in many countries and has written extensively on education. Plueddemann earned degrees at Wheaton College (BA, MA) and Michigan State University (PhD). His publications include Leading Across Cultures (IVP Academic, 2009) and Pilgrims in Progress (Shaw Books, 2000).

In Teaching Across Cultures, Plueddemann writes generally on pedagogy and specifically on cross-cultural pedagogy. As the book is introduced, two points become clear. First, Plueddemann writes to help teachers everywhere; in some ways, this book is his treatise on pedagogical philosophy and method. He writes, “Teaching that is pleasing to God builds on all of God’s truth and fosters the development of learners into all God intended them to become,” which is a hint at the pilgrim metaphor he later introduces and exposits (2, emphasis mine). This pilgrim metaphor (and method)—also defended in his book, Pilgrims in Progress—is not just something to be implemented in a few cultural contexts. Rather, he believes it is useful in all contexts, for it is “timeless” (34). Relatedly, Plueddemann describes himself as a developmentalist. He aims to “foster lifelong holistic development of the individual” (5). The educational experience, then, is a pilgrimage. In the educational process, teachers should lead learners to become lifelong learners.

Second, Plueddemann explains that “this book is about how to teach almost anything to anyone, anywhere” (4). In order to fulfill this second—and it seems overarching purpose (according to the title)—Plueddemann implores educators to master three things (in addition to his pilgrim metaphor): “the content to be taught, the culture of the learner, and the ability to encourage bridges between content and culture” (7). Moreover, this second purpose seems to be a catalyst for the first, which is to help all educators with pedagogy in general, as Plueddemann notes: “When we learn to teach effectively across cultures, we can teach almost anything to anybody, anywhere” (2). If Plueddemann can help make teachers more cross-culturally competent, then he has done his job, for the best teachers are ones who can teach in any culture. He aims to reach “those who don’t claim to be Christian, as well as those who embrace a Christian worldview” (4). The intended audience, then, is twofold. One could argue, however, that his audience is technically any educator, teaching any subject, in any culture.

In chapters 1 and 2, the author works through various metaphors of teaching: the production or factory metaphor (teacher as technician), the growth metaphor (teacher as gardener), and the travel metaphor (teacher as tour guide). In many cultures, one of these will prove most useful. However, Plueddemann synthesizes their strengths to “make” his pilgrim metaphor, which promotes “the journey of human development with an ultimate destination and a compelling purpose for living” (17–18). The teacher’s job is to build fence posts to help learners connect theory and practice. The pilgrim metaphor is applied to a “rail-fence model,” wherein teachers make those connections (19–28, 99–110, 129).

In the next four chapters, Plueddemann walks his readers through how to know both their subject matter as well as the learners and their respective cultures. He concludes in chapter 7 that teachers should see their subject matter as a means, not an end (73). The end goal is not to have students know something but to be something, namely mature men and women equipped for lifelong learning. The latter half of the book includes chapters on the differences between teaching in individualistic and collectivistic cultures, the profit of teaching through struggle, and his advocacy for greater balance in pedagogical method—an advocacy that ultimately results in the pilgrim metaphor. Teachers should not assume the preferred metaphor here will also work over there. Plueddemann concludes by giving practical examples and reminding his readers:

The ultimate aim of teaching is the development of pilgrims. I identify the aim as the vision for teaching. I often ask, If God were to richly bless my teaching, what might it look like in the lives of my students? I try to picture what each learner might be years from now if God were to work powerfully in his or her life. A visionary aim is a faith picture of the future if God were to bless. (147)

Teachers should treat students as pilgrims on a journey, a journey that might not conclude by the end of a given class, but one that will—at the least—be well on its way.

Teaching Across Cultures is helpful, but by no means is it a magnum opus on cross-cultural education. At best, it is an introduction to the subject, for it deals with foundational education principles. As for his two previously-mentioned purposes, Plueddemann shows a staunch commitment to defend and expound on them throughout the book. He aims to help any and every educator; he adequately does this by helping develop his readers as cross-cultural teachers using his “rail-fence model,” which is self-proclaimed as “adaptable” in any setting (129).

As for the book’s overarching strengths, three stand out. First, Plueddemann has a praxis orientation. Case studies are provided at the end of each chapter. The author illustrates through retelling his personal experiences. Plueddemann applies his work to teachers in cross-cultural settings as well as teachers anywhere in the world. All in all, Teaching Across Cultures gives teachers something to try, while at the same time challenging their underlying notions of education. Second, Plueddemann allows Scripture to inform his methodology, though he does have a tendency to prooftext (citing verses without providing sufficient exegesis or explanation). He also takes some passages out of context. While one can be thankful for Plueddemann’s use of Scripture, one must also admit that Jesus’s words in John 14:6 are most likely not about the “bottom rail” (i.e., “the way . . . and the life”) and “top rail” (i.e., “the truth”) of the author’s—or anyone else’s—method (101–102). Third, Plueddemann convinces his readers of the need to connect theory and practice. Some cultures prefer one over the other, but both are valuable. Teachers must avoid thinking the job is complete after the information is disseminated; students and teachers must apply it.

A few shortcomings were consistent throughout. First, with the outright advocation of his pilgrim metaphor, Plueddemann consequently downplays the importance of knowledge acquisition. If the main purpose of teaching is “the development of persons into all God intended,” then some teachers might neglect lower-level learning functions in favor of higher-level functions (3). Teachers must remember that students start from the bottom (i.e., in Bloom’s Taxonomy, understanding and remembering) before they work their way up (i.e., toward creating, evaluating, and analyzing). Second, Plueddemann is forthright about the teacher’s need to modify teaching methods depending on context, yet he says little about the student’s need to modify preferences as well. Third, he deals primarily in binary terms. For example, he seeks to help “Koreans teaching in Bolivia, Ecuadorians coaching in India . . . [and] Kenyans teaching in London,” but he says little on how to teach in intercultural settings, aside from his belief that his method works anywhere.

Though there are two overarching purposes, Plueddemann writes more of general than cross-cultural pedagogy, which makes the title a bit misleading. Relatedly, as noted in its subtitle, the book is stated to be “for global mission.” However, this aspect is merely assumed and not explicitly addressed. The role of general education or theological education in missions is not clear. Fifth, since Plueddemann’s primary measurement for success is the development (or maturation) of students, those serving in institutional settings might be at a loss. As much as a teacher might say he reached the goal of developing life-long learners, if student evaluations are poor and final grades are low, Plueddemann’s measurement might not prove enough. Moreover, if specific classes change depending on each group, then standardization is lessened. One group of students taking a history class might get one experience, while another group’s is altogether different, which presents a problem for those serving in accredited institutions; more solutions could have been given on this issue.

All things considered, Teaching Across Cultures is still profitable. I recommend it for those who find themselves in a cross-cultural context or any context. However, Plueddemann stated that this book was written for both Christians and non-Christians; I did not find this to be true. Plueddemann assumes learners are influenced “through the power of the Holy Spirit,” since “the Holy Spirit is the ultimate teacher working through spiritually gifted teachers who connect the Word of God with human needs in such a way that leads to growth” (23, 97). Christian worldview is presupposed, and I cannot imagine non-Christians agreeing with his foundational principles. Nonetheless, Christian educators should add this one to their shelves.

- C. J. Moore,
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Kansas City, Missouri

1 & 2 Thessalonians. By Nijay K. Gupta. Vol. 13 in Zondervan Critical Introductions to the New Testament. Edited by Michael F. Bird. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019. 320 pages. Hardcover, $44.99.

This book is the first volume in a new and unique series that promises to provide extensive, volume-length critical introductions for every book of the New Testament. Edited by Michael Bird, this series is sure to fill a long-standing and somewhat enigmatic hole that has existed in lay and scholarly bookshelves for way too long. In a time where producers of commentaries struggle to set their products apart from the ever-expanding commentary collections, Zondervan has begun to provide a truly invaluable and unique resource geared toward a variety of formal and informal students of the Bible.

While this initial volume by Nijay Gupta (PhD, University of Durham) contains several (mostly minor) shortcomings, the author has nevertheless paved the way for a wealth of later volumes that is sure to build on his strengths and learn from his weaknesses. At a glance, the book is structured symmetrically with 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians forming the two respective parts. Each part then possesses four chapters dealing generally with issues of (1) text, (2) background and situation, (3) themes and interpretation, and (4) history of interpretation. A healthy bibliography follows the main text, along with several helpful indices.

In chapter one, Gupta discussed the text of 1 Thessalonians and related issues. This encompassed both explicitly textual problems, such as textual variants and integrity, and less obvious textual problems, such as authorship, date, and certain literary features, such as genre and style. In this chapter, Gupta also explored issues related to the letter’s structure and influences. Chapter two then extended into other background issues, including the nature of the city of Thessalonica, the situational aspects that led to the Thessalonian correspondence, and the question of which letter was written first. Regarding this last question, Gupta remains uncommitted, but concluded with a description of the traditional view.

Chapter three is one of the longer chapters, containing two general sections that deal with themes and interpretive issues respectively. In the first half, Gupta briefly discussed themes in the biblical text, including eschatology and hope; faith(fulness) and loyalty; thanksgiving and joy; metamorphosis; work and labor; holiness, purity, and integrity; love; and Christian tradition and teachings. One salient point here relates to Paul’s use of faith in 1 Thessalonians, which Gupta described as a term that relates “to perseverance in light of the persecution and suffering that the Thessalonians were facing” (93). Thus, Paul’s reference to the persecuted Thessalonians’ faith in 1:3, for instance, extended beyond theological faith alone to “fidelity in their ongoing walk with God in hope and love” (94). The second half of the chapter explores five particular interpretive issues found in 1 Thessalonians (i.e., related to 2:7b, 13–16; 4:4, 11; and 5:3). Then, in chapter four, Gupta surveyed the history of scholarship concerning 1 Thessalonians, beginning with the Apostolic Fathers and concluding with modern scholarship from 1985 to 2017.

Although a few peculiarities (to be noted below) are present, the second section, encompassing chapters five through eight, follows the same general structure as the first, only for 2 Thessalonians. Thus, Gupta discussed the text of 2 Thessalonians in chapter five; the background, situation, and date in chapter six; themes and interpretive issues in chapter seven; and the history of interpretation in chapter eight.

A couple of critiques of the book are worth noting. First, one issue regards the seemingly arbitrary placement of certain critical discussions. For instance, whereas Gupta examined issues of authorship and date of 1 Thessalonians in the chapter on the text of 1 Thessalonians, he treated the date of 2 Thessalonians more extensively under the chapter on the background and situation of 2 Thessalonians. The reasons why Gupta did not place these issues in parallel chapters—particularly in the chapters on background and situation—is unclear. Further, this confusion is compounded by the fact that Gupta gave little, if any, explanation or statement even recognizing this asymmetry.

Another critique regards the fact that Gupta’s discussion tends to be underdeveloped at points. For example, in his first chapter, Gupta identified “a major debate in the study of 1 Thessalonians” (38), referencing the meaning of 1 Thess 4:15 and Paul’s reference to the “Word of the Lord.” After noting two differing views, Gupta concluded with a matter-of-fact statement of his view with no further clarification or defense (39). This reoccurring characteristic hindered the flow and introduced an unfortunate abruptness to the volume. Additionally, Gupta occasionally, though infrequently, takes positions that would be questionable from a Baptist perspective. For example, the author suggests that he is open to the possibility that the Acts chronology could be inaccurate (59); although, to be fair, he does so while cautioning against coming to such conclusions too hastily.

The benefits of this volume certainly outweigh its deficiencies. Aside from the obvious—and previously stated—advantages, the nature of this volume allowed Gupta to address particular critical issues in the texts of 1 and 2 Thessalonians with more detail without getting preoccupied with other, less debated, verses. Therefore, for instance, the author was able to write seven pages on the issue in 2 Thessalonians regarding the identity and meaning of the atoktoi (i.e., those who are undisciplined), particularly in 3:6–15. Gupta’s suspicion is that this refers to “self-appointed ‘apostles’” (263) who were defiant rather than lazy (262). Additionally, even aside from the questionable placement of certain discussions, the table of contents and headings make locating all of the relevant subjects an easy enough task. This book is really an invaluable resource for any student of the New Testament, whether a scholar, pastor, or layperson.

- Dustin M. Rigsby,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

The Vines Expository Bible: A Guided Journey Through the Scriptures with Pastor Jerry Vines. Edited by Jerry Vines. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2018. 1965 pages. Hardcover, $44.99.

Jerry Vines was pastor of one of the largest Southern Baptist churches in America (First Baptist Jacksonville, Florida) for twenty-four years, and he served two terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Vines has also written numerous works, including Power in the Pulpit (Moody, 1999; revised, 2017), Progress in the Pulpit (Moody, 2017)—both co-authored with Jim Shaddix—and Passion in the Pulpit (Moody, 2018), co-authored with Adam B. Dooley. Vines has been involved in Southern Baptist ministry for more than sixty years.

Thus, many consider Vines to be a giant of the faith. In light of this, The Vines Expository Bible was produced for the purpose of demonstrating that God has not only used Vines as an example of how to live out one’s faith but also to preserve the faith for future generations. His famous sermon “A Baptist and His Bible” (1987) is “regarded as a key turning point in the Conservative Resurgence.”[8] For Vines, this resurgence has yet to end and this study bible is an attempt share a portion of his “expository work with a larger audience” (vii). The unique sections of this study bible help to support this endeavor.

The main attractions of the book are the sections entitled “Presenting the Message.” These sections—there are two hundred and fifty of them—present detailed outlines of sermons from Vines’s archive. Generally, a similar pattern is followed in each. First, an introduction is given. Within this introduction, Vines either presents a short overview of how the passage fits into its immediate context or a short illustration related to its main topic. Second, the pericope under examination is presented in manageable chunks normally made up of anywhere between three to five points. Third, the passage is connected to Christ, either directly or indirectly, as Vines concludes each of these sections with an appeal to trust in Christ. Thus, each of the “Presenting the Message” sections serve as a beginner’s guide to preaching specific passages in a coherent manner. These presentations can easily be modified and adapted for various audiences given their overall clarity.

Other attractions are the sections entitled “Living the Message.” The goal of each of these sections is to present a means by which modern believers can live out the central message of specific passages. In other words, Vines presents his view of how certain passages find immediate relevance for modern audiences. These sections are varied in length and seek to apply the biblical text from a variety of avenues. An interesting one is found in Vines’s reflection on 1 Kgs 21:17. Here Vines tells a story about his dealing with a “local crime syndicate” during his second pastorate (518). Another section of interest is found in Vines’s reflection on 2 Tim 3:16. Here Vines compares the biblical writers to parts of an organ for the sake of illustration how each writer was “uniquely inspired by the Spirit of God, so that they wrote exactly what God intended to be written” (1768). Overall, each of these sections presents the reader with an encouraging and refreshing word from the lens of one who has truly kept the faith.

In addition to these attractions are various sections that have become somewhat of a standard in modern study bibles. These include the following: word studies, important variants discussed in footnotes, book introductions concerned with dating and authorship issues, and so forth. These portions of The Vines Expository Bible present information in a way that is expected within conservative circles. Because of this, some of the content is not as helpful for even a basic level of biblical difficulties. A few examples will be provided.

In the introductory material presented in relation to the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, Vines states that Solomon should be viewed as the author and that “scholars for the most part do not debate his authorship” (948; see also 930). However, Tremper Longman, whose commentaries are both considered to be the best on these respective books, does not consider this to be a clear-cut case.[9] Thus, it is unclear as to which scholars are being reference by Vines given that Solomonic authorship of these books is not really the consensus. While I can understand Vines’s overall point, the oversimplification of these issues is somewhat unhelpful.

Another example can be found in Vines’s discussion of the principle of lex talionis (the law of retaliation) in Lev 24:19. Vines argues that in Matt 5:38 and 39 Jesus is giving a “new law and new guidelines” (178). From here, Vines concludes the following, “Someone says no difference exist between Islam and Christianity. They both advocate stoning people and all those kinds of things. But the difference between the Koran and our Bible is that we have a New Testament” (178). This sort of statement is vague and confusing. Is Vines advocating that there is no difference between the Koran and the Old Testament? I would assume that this is not the case given various other statements made by Vines related to the inspiration and value of the Old Testament.

Therefore, this work is recommended given that its numerous strengths outweigh its few weaknesses. Hopefully, this work will encourage a new generation of believers to develop a deeper sense of the relevance of Scripture and of its the impact upon the life of Pastor Vines. Still, for those already involved in conservative Christian circles this work will possibly only serve as a sounding board. Sadly, Vines’s bold expressions and oversimplifications will probably prove to be unpersuasive to any liberal-leaning Christians. Thus, I pray that the Conservative Resurgence continues to gain momentum. However, I also desire that this movement will continue to emphasize ways in which Christians of various opinions can unify for the sake of the gospel. By God’s grace, The Vines Expository Bible will serve as an aid in this process.

- Ron Lindo,
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
New Orleans, Louisiana

Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry

Southern Baptist Complementarianism: Perspectives and Prospects

1 For a conservative account of the controversy, see Jerry Sutton, The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2000). For a moderate interpretation, see David T. Morgan, The New Crusades, the New Holy Land: Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention, 1969–1991 (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1996).

2 See Barry Hankins, Uneasy in Babylon: Southern Baptist Conservatives and American Culture (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2003), 200–39, and Elizabeth H. Flowers, Into the Pulpit: Southern Baptist Women and Power since World War II (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2014), 102–76.

3 The Danvers Statement was drafted as a formal summary of complementarian principles in 1987 and published by the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in 1988. At least four of the six Southern Baptist seminaries have formally adopted the Danvers Statement as a secondary confessional document to clarify their complementarian convictions. The Danvers Statement is available at https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement.

4 See Aimee Byrd, Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: How the Church Needs to Rediscover Her Purpose (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020), and Andrew David Naselli, “Does Anyone Need to Recover from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood? A Review Article of Aimee Byrd’s Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, May 4, 2020, available at https://cbmw.org/2020/05/04/does-anyone-need-to-recover-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-a-review-article-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/.

Women and Ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention: A Brief Historical Overview[5]

1 The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), Article VI: The Church.

2 Adam Harwood, “God’s Design for Human Sexuality,” unpublished paper, 8. Harwood will include a fuller treatment of this topic in his forthcoming book, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, under contract).

3 The Baptist Faith and Message (2000), Article VI: The Church.

4 CBMW formed in 1987 to provide a complementarian response to egalitarianism and radical feminism.

5 Wayne Grudem, “But What Should Women Do in the Church?” CBMW News, November 1995, 1.

6 Anthony L. Chute, Nathan A. Finn, and Michael A. G. Haykin, The Baptist Story: From English Sect to Global Movement (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015), 79.

7 H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1987), 691.

8 Harry Leon McBeth, “The Role of Women in Southern Baptist History,” Baptist History and Heritage 12.1 (January 1977): 4.

9 Charles W. Deweese, “Baptist Women Deacons and Deaconesses: Key Developments and Trends, 1609–2005,” Baptist History and Heritage 40.3 (Summer/Fall 2005): 71.

10 A Declaration of Faith of English People, 1611, Article 20.

11 First London Confession (1644, 1646), Article 31, “set apart leaders”; Second London Confession (1677/1689), Article 26.9, and replicated in the Philadelphia Confession (1742), Article 27.9, a deacon “be chosen by the like suffrage”; Orthodox Creed (1678), Article 31, outlines separate ordinations for Messenger, Elder, and Deacon.

12 McBeth, “Role of Women,” 24.

13 Robert Boyte C. Howell, The Deaconship: Its Nature, Qualifications, Relations, and Duties (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1846), 124–36.

14 C. Thomas Halbrooks, “The Meaning and Significance of Ordination Among Southern Baptists, 1845–1945,” Baptist History and Heritage 23.3 (July 1988): 29.

15 C. Penrose St. Amant, “Sources of Baptist Views on Ordination,” Baptist History and Heritage 23.3 (July 1988): 10.

16 Stan Norman, “Ecclesiological Guidelines to Inform Southern Baptist Church Planters,” Position Paper Presented to the North American Mission Board, 28 September 2004, 21.

17 Sarah Frances Anders, “Baptist Women Walking Together in America, 1950–2000,” Baptist History and Heritage 40.3 (Summer/Fall 2005): 11.

18 Elgee Bentley, “Women of the Southern Baptist Convention” Tms, p. [5], Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives.

19 McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 692.

20 McBeth, “Role of Women,” 4.

21 Southern Baptist Convention Annual, 1885: 56.

22 Bill Sumners, “The Call of God in Baptist History,” Christian Media Journal 3.2 (Winter 2000–2001): 7.

23 Robert A. Baker, The Southern Baptist Convention and Its People 1607–1972 (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1974), 247–48.

24 Southern Baptist Convention Annual, 1872:35.

25 Catherine B. Allen, The New Lottie Moon Story (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1980), 172.

26 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1873:43.

27 Allen, The New Lottie Moon Story, 142; McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 417.

28 Allen, The New Lottie Moon Story, 172, 208.

29 Catherine B. Allen, “Other Issues Needing Attention,” Baptist History and Heritage 22.3 (July 1987): 38; McBeth, “Role of Women,” 16–17.

30 McBeth, “Role of Women,” 8.

31 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1845:3.

32 The term, ‘delegate’ would later be replaced with ‘messenger’ to clarify that those in attendance were voicing their personal views.

33 W. W. Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention, 1845–1953 (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1954), 148–49.

34 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1885:6.

35 McBeth, “Role of Women,” 12.

36 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1885:30. The vote was 131–42.

37 McBeth, “Role of Women,” 4.

38 Norman H. Maring, Baptists in New Jersey: A Study in Transition (Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1964), 233.

39 McBeth, “Role of Women,” 12.

40 Bentley, “Women of the Southern Baptist Convention,” [4].

41 McBeth, “Role of Women,” 6.

42 Allen, The New Lottie Moon Story, 170.

43 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1885: 34.

44 Catherine B. Allen, A Century to Celebrate: History of Woman’s Missionary Union (Birmingham, AL: Woman’s Missionary Union, 1987), 433.

45 McBeth, “Role of Women,” 16.

46 Allen, Century to Celebrate, 142–45.

47 McBeth, “Role of Women,” 7.

48 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1917:37.

49 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1917:38.

50 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1918:18.

51 Bentley, “Women of the Southern Baptist Convention,” [5].

52 Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, s.v. “Women, Convention Privileges of.”

53 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1984: 65. It passed with 58% of the vote.

54 Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention, 162–63.

55 Barnes, The Southern Baptist Convention, 296.

56 Robert A. Baker, Tell the Generations Following: A History of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1908–1983 (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1983), 136–37.

57 Gregory Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009 (New York: Oxford University Press), 526.

58 Park H. Anderson, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary: A Brief History (New Orleans: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1949), 37–38.

59 Fourth Annual Catalog of the Baptist Bible Institute, 1921–1922, 46.

60 First Annual Catalog of the Baptist Bible Institute, 1918–1919, 3.

61 Claude L. Howe, Seventy-five Years of Providence and Prayer: An Illustrated History of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (New Orleans: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993), 118–19. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary Annual Catalog, 1957–1958, 10–11.

62 Keith E. Durso and Pamela R. Durso, “‘Cherish the Dream God Has Given You’: The Story of Addie Davis” in Courage and Hope: The Stories of Ten Baptist Women Ministers (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2005), 21.

63 Sarah Frances Anders, “Women’s Role in the SBC and Its Churches as Compared with Selected Other Denominations,” Review and Expositor 72.1 (Winter 1975): 33.

64 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1973:87.

65 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1980:54.

66 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1983:71.

67 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1983:67, 71.

68 Southern Baptist Convention, Annual, 1984:65. It passed with 58% of the vote.

69 Bill J. Leonard, Baptists in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 218–19.

70 Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 526.

71 McBeth, Baptist Heritage, 691.

72 Marjorie Hyer, “Baptist Group Ousts Church with Female Pastor,” in The Washington Post, October 20, 1987.

73 Molly T. Marshall “‘God Does Indeed Call to Ministry Whom God Will, Gender Notwithstanding’” in Keith E. Durso and Pamela R. Durso, Courage and Hope: The Stories of Ten Baptist Women Ministers (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2005), 125–26.

74 Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 479–83.

75 Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 504–6, 512, 520. Christian inclusivism, the topic of Marshall’s dissertation, states that some devout individuals can be saved without hearing and responding to the gospel.

76 Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 522.

77 “History of the Carver School,” available at https://www.campbellsville.edu/academics/schools-and-colleges/carver-school-social-work/history-carver-school/; Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 542.

78 Eileen R. Campbell-Reed and Pamela R. Durso, “State of Women in Baptist Life,” 2005:3; Pamela R. Durso and Kevin Pranoto, “State of Women in Baptist Life,” 2015:11.

79 Toby Druin, “Southwestern Trustees Begin Hemphill Era,” Baptist Press, October 20, 1994, 2.

80 Gregory Tomlin, “Southwestern Adds 8 to Faculty,” Baptist Press, April 10, 2002, 1.

81 Tomlin, “Southwestern Adds 8 to Faculty,” 1.

82 Baptist and Reflector, April 23, 2003, 10.

83 “Newspaper Reports Tenure Refusal for Southwestern Woman Prof,” Baptist Press, January 22, 2007, 1.

84 Jesse C. Fletcher, The Southern Baptist Convention: A Sesquicentennial History (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 272.

85 Deweese, “Baptist Women Deacons and Deaconesses,” 77.

86 Morgan Lee, “John MacArthur Is No Stranger to Controversy,” in Christianity Today podcast, October 25, 2019, available at https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/october-web-only/john-macarthur-beth-moore-controversy.html.

87 Bob Smietana, “Accusing SBC of ‘Caving,’ John MacArthur says of Beth Moore: ‘Go Home,’” in Religion News, October 19, 2019.

88 The Summit Church, “One in Christ Jesus: The Role of Women at The Summit Church,” available at https://summitchurch.com/Content/External
Website/Documents/one-in-christ-role-of-women-in-ministry.pdf.

Broad Complementarianism in the Southern Baptist Convention

1 Rhonda Kelley and Candi Finch, “Women’s Advisory Council Final Report” (Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, June 2017), 4.

2 Denny Burk, “Mere Complementarianism,” Eikon 1.2 (2019): 28–42.

3 Jason Allen (MBTS), Daniel Akin (SEBTS), R. Albert Mohler (SBTS), Thomas White (Cedarville University), Jason Duesing (MBTS), Denny Burk (SBTS), Jim Hamilton (SBTS), Daniel Heimbach (SEBTS), Bruce Ware (SBTS), and H. B. Charles (Shiloh Metropolitan Baptist Church). The full list of Council members is available at https://cbmw.org/about/council/.

4 Kevin DeYoung has written to me privately confirming that he is the one to have coined this terminology at a private speakers’ meeting for Together for the Gospel a few years ago. As best as he and I can tell, the first print reference to the terminology appears in Jonathan Leeman, “A Word of Empathy, Warning, and Counsel for ‘Narrow’ Complementarians,” 9Marks Journal, February 8, 2018, available at https://www.9marks.org/article/a-word-of-empathy-warning-and-counsel-for-narrow-complementarians/.

5 Charles S. Kelley, Jr., Richard Land, and R. Albert Mohler, Jr., The Baptist Faith & Message (Nashville, TN: Lifeway, 2007), 91.

6 Kathy Keller, Jesus, Justice, & Gender Roles: A Case for Gender Roles in Ministry, Fresh Perspectives on Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 21, 29.

7 Craig L. Blomberg, “Women in Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, ed. James R. Beck, 2nd ed., Counterpoints (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 123–84. Blomberg relies on an unpublished paper by Phillip Payne. Payne’s thesis has subsequently appeared in Philip B. Payne, “1 Tim 2.12 and the Use of Οὐδέ to Combine Two Elements to Express a Single Idea,” New Testament Studies 54. 2 (2008): 235–53.

8 Keller, Jesus, Justice, & Gender Roles, 20.

9 Keller, Jesus, Justice, & Gender Roles, 34.

10 Keller, Jesus, Justice, & Gender Roles, 32–33.

11 Denny Burk, “New and Old Departures in the Translation of Αὐθεντεῖν,” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation & Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 279–96.

12 A helpful Baptist perspective on ordination can be found in Benjamin Merkle, “Should Elders Be Ordained?” 9Marks Journal, February 26, 2010, available at https://www.9marks.org/article/should-elders-be-ordained/.

13 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Should Women Teach? Thoughts on Function, Office, and 1 Timothy 2:12,” 9Marks Journal, December 10, 2019, available at https://www.9marks.org/article/should-women-teach-thoughts-on-function-office-and-1-timothy-212/.

14 Keller, Jesus, Justice, & Gender Roles, 29.

15 Kevin DeYoung, “9 Marks of Healthy Biblical Complementarianism,” The Gospel Coalition, April 22, 2016, available at https:// www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/9-marks-of-healthy-biblical-complementarianism/.

16 Leeman, “A Word of Empathy, Warning, and Counsel for ‘Narrow’ Complementarians.”

17 Douglas Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 185.

18 Indeed, the standard lexicon for the Greek New Testament says that the word translated as teach means “to tell someone what to do” (BDAG, s.v. didaskō).

19 Moo, “What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men?” 185.

20 D. A Carson, “‘Silent in the Churches’: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 151–53. I explain my own view on this text in Denny Burk, “Must Women Be Silent in Churches? (1 Corinthians 14:34),” 9Marks Journal, December 2019, 98–104.

21 I hold to a cessationist position on the revelatory gifts. For that reason, I do not believe that the gift of tongues is still operative in the church. Nevertheless, I do believe that the reading of Scripture has the same function in modern worship services that prophecy would have had in first century worship services. Thus, the Bible does not prohibit women from reading Scripture in our corporate worship services.

22 John Piper, “Is There a Place for Female Professors at Seminary?” Podcast, January 22, 2018, available at https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-there-a-place-for-female-professors-at-seminary.

23 Gary Ledbetter, “SBC Seminaries Show Similarities, Diversity Regarding Female Profs,” Southern Baptist Texan, February 22, 2007, 3, 7.

24 Even though Mohler and Akin have female professors on their faculties, their position is still essentially the same one that Piper is arguing for. The apparent difference is simply due to the differences of their respective institutions. Piper’s article assumes a seminary setting that exclusively trains students for pastoral ministry (e.g., Bethlehem Seminary). In that setting, all the classes are for the training of pastors in core disciplines, so all the professors have to be men.

25 Danny Akin, quoted in Ledbetter, “SBC Seminaries,” 3.

26 Albert Mohler, quoted in Ledbetter, “SBC Seminaries,” 3.

27 Piper, “Is There a Place for Female Professors at Seminary?”

28 The following discussion is largely taken from my commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. See Denny Burk, “1–2 Timothy and Titus,” in ESV Expository Commentary: Ephesians–Philemon (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 409–11.

29 Schreiner, “Should Women Teach?”

On the Universal and Particular Offices of Proclamation in relation to Women as Teachers in Church and Seminary

1 The Baptist Faith and Message defines a church thus, “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth” (Art VI). Article XII of the same confession treats the “Christian school, college, or seminary” as an institution distinct from the churches: “Moreover, the cause of education in the Kingdom of Christ is co-ordinate with the causes of missions and general benevolence, and should receive along with these the liberal support of the churches.”

2 Article VII of the Baptist Faith and Message treats baptism explicitly as a “church ordinance” and restricts the Lord’s Supper to “church members” who have received the prerequisite of baptism.

3 Stanley M. Burgess, The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984); Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, trans. J.A. Baker (London: A&C Black, 1969); James Leo Garrett Jr., “The Pre-Cyprianic Doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers,” in Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History, ed. F.F. Church and T. George (Leiden: EJ Brill, 1979), 45–61; idem, “The Priesthood of All Christians: From Cyprian to John of Damascus,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 30 (1988): 22–33.

4 Cyril Eastwood, The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful: An Investigation of the Doctrine from Biblical Times to the Reformation (London: Epworth, 1963); Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Royal Priesthood in the English Reformation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).

5 Eastwood, The Priesthood of All Believers: An Examination of the Doctrine from the Reformation to the Present Day (London: Epworth, 1960); Yves Congar, Lay People in the Church: A Study for a Theology of the Laity, trans. Donald Attwater (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1965); Yarnell, John Locke’s “Letters of Gold”: Universal Priesthood and the English Dissenting Theologians, 1688–1789 (Oxford: Centre for Baptist History and Heritage, 2017).

6 Paul Fiddes, ed., The Fourth Strand of the Reformation: The Covenant Ecclesiology of Anabaptists, English Separatists, and Early General Baptists, Centre for Baptist History and Heritage Studies 17 (Oxford: Regent’s Park College, 2018).

7 Fred A. Grissom, “Offices in the New Testament,” in Holman Bible Dictionary, ed. Trent C. Butler (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1991).

8 Ben L. Merkle, “Offices in the New Testament,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary: Completely Revised, Updated and Expanded, ed. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1998).

9 James Leo Garrett Jr., Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (North Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 2001), 604.

10 Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2:604, 608–9.

11 Eastwood, The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful, 45–46, cited in Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2:609.

12 Other Baptist scholars have similarly taught that the church’s clerical ministry serves for the welfare (bene esse) of the church but the ministry does not constitute the essence (esse) of the church. Thomas White, “What Makes Baptism Valid?” in Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, ed. Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007), 111.

13 Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2:611.

14 Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2:610.

15 Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2:618.

16 Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2:620–22.

17 Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2:624–25.

18 Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2:633.

19 Mark E. Dever, “The Church,” in A Theology for the Church, revised edition, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2014), 603–4.

20 Dever, “The Church,” 604–10.

21 Dever, “The Church,” 612–13.

22 Dever, “The Church,” 616.

23 Dever, “The Church,” 615.

24 Dever, “The Church,” 628, italics his.

25 Dever, “The Church,” 629.

26 Dever, “The Church,” 628.

27 Dever, “The Church,” 655, italics mine.

28 Dever, “The Church,” 861.

29 Dever, “The Church,” 663.

30 Dever, “The Church,” 603.

31 Dever, “The Church,” 606–7.

32 Dever, “The Church,” 612.

33 Dever, “The Church,” 622.

34 Dever, “The Church,” 624–25.

35 However, Dever explicitly warns that women could lead the congregation against his view of authority “should more secularly conceived questions of power be raised.” Why women in particular are singled out here is unclear. Dever, “The Church,” 664n.

36 Dever, “The Church,” 634–38.

37 Dever, “The Church,” 638.

38 Dever, “The Church,” 661–62.

39 Dever, “The Church,” 663–64.

40 Dever, “The Priesthood of All Believers: Reconsidering Every-Member Ministry,” in The Compromised Church: The Present Evangelical Crisis (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1998), 96–103.

41 Dever, “The Priesthood of All Believers,” 103–6.

42 Dever, “The Church,” 629n87. For a different view, see Kenneth Shell Hemphill, “The Pauline Concept of Charisma: A Situational and Developmental Approach” (PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1977). Hemphill concluded Eph 4 requires pastors and teachers to equip the saints, while the role of the saints is the work of the ministry. True church growth will occur when clergy no longer inhibit laity from joining Christ in faith and work. See also Hemphill, The Bonsai Theory of Church Growth: Overcoming Artificial Barriers to Church Growth (1991; reprint Tigerville, SC: Auxano, 2011), 29, 42, 84. Hemphill served as the President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary from 1994–2003 and nominated Malcolm to the Trustees for his election, twice.

43 Dever, “The Priesthood of All Believers,” 106–110.

44 Dever, “The Priesthood of All Believers,” 110.

45 Dever, “The Priesthood of All Believers,” 111–12.

46 Dever, “Regaining Meaningful Church Membership,” in Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, 47. See also Dever, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 51.

47 Dever, “Regaining Meaningful Church Membership,” 51–54.

48 In a recent sermon, Dever warned leaders their eschatological judgment will include both “humbling” and “giving an account.” These are the fourth and eighth of ten things ministers should expect. Dever, “The Accounting We Shall Give: What Pastors Should Expect at the Day of Judgment” (Together for the Gospel, www.t4g.org, downloaded 18 April 2020). In a 2009 sermon, Dever believes proper authority will model the holy and just God and seek to bless those whom the minister serves. Dever, “This King Will Die” (Capitol Hill Baptist Church, www.capitolhillbaptist.org/sermon/this-king-will-die/, downloaded 18 April 2020). Appreciation is extended to Mark Dever for making us aware of both sermons and providing privileged access.

49 Dever, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2012), ch 7, locs 1679, 1770.

50 Dever, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism, 45.

51 Dever, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism, 98. “Every Christian has a role in making visible the gospel of the invisible God.” Dever, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism, 50.

52 Dever, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism, 47.

53 Quoting John Stott; Dever, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism, 47.

54 Dever, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism, 55, 61.

55 Dever, The Gospel & Personal Evangelism, 15, 54.

56 Abraham Friesen, Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).

57 Benjamin Keach, The Glorious Lover: A Divine Poem (London: Christopher Hussey, 1679), 256; Keach, Gold Refin’d; Or, Baptism in its Primitive Purity (London: Nathaniel Crouch, 1689), 3, 6, 7, 20, 36, 68, 86, 87; Keach, Pedo-Baptism disprov’d (London: John Harris, 1691), Appendix, 1; Keach, The Rector Rectified and Corrected (London: John Harris, 1692), 27, 51, 78; etc.

58 Keach believed teaching more important command than baptism and carried tighter responsibility. Keach, Gold Refin’d, 20.

59 William Carey, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen (London, 1791); cited in Yarnell, “The Heart of a Baptist,” Criswell Theological Review, new series, 4 (2006): 73–87.

60 Life and Light for Woman, vol. 22 (Boston: Woman’s Board of Missions, 1892), 551–53.

61 John Rippon, The Baptist Annual Register, for 1790, 1791, 1792, and Part of 1793 (London; Dilly, Button, and Thomas, 1793), 374.

62 Leon McBeth, Women in Baptist Life (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1979), 75–88.

63 McBeth, Women in Baptist Life, 91.

64 McBeth, Women in Baptist Life, 108–12.

65 J. R. Graves, The Baptist, 22 February 1879; cited in McBeth, Women in Baptist Life, 113.

66 The “flapper” of the 1920s raised his ire, because she had a “low-cut waist, high-cut skirt,” was “corsetless, and perhaps, petticoatless.” J.W. Porter, Feminism: Woman and Her Work (Louisville, KY: Baptist Book Concern, 1923), 25.

67 Religious Herald, 7 February 1895; cited in McBeth, Women in Baptist Life, 114.

68 J.M. Carroll, A History of Texas Baptists (Dallas, TX: Baptist Standard Publishing Company, 1923), 861.

69 McBeth, Women in Baptist Life, 143.

70 The 1925 confession states, “It is the duty of every Christian man and woman, and the duty of every church of Christ to seek to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.”

71 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” in Two Views of Women in Ministry, rev. ed., ed. Stanley R. Gundry and James R. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 276.

72 Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, rev. ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000). Schreiner’s position here is relatively nuanced, but he dismisses any idea a woman may serve as a “regular teacher of a gathering of men and women.” Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” 280.

73 Max Turner, “Spiritual Gifts Then and Now,” Vox Evangelica 15 (1985): 17.

74 David S. Dockery, “The Role of Women in Worship and Ministry: Some Hermeneutical Questions,” Criswell Theological Review 1.2 (1987): 378.

75 Dockery, “The Role of Women in Worship and Ministry,” 379–80.

76 G. Sujin Pak, The Reformation of Prophecy: Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet and Old Testament Prophecy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 5, 7, 10, 12–13.

77 Pak, The Reformation of Prophecy, 15.

78 Pak, The Reformation of Prophecy, 25.

79 Pak, The Reformation of Prophecy, 29–30, passim.

80 Pak, The Reformation of Prophecy, 30. Cf. Gregory Kane, “The Exercise of Prophecy in the Early Reformation,” Journal of the European Theological Association 33 (2013): 28–41.

81 “Prophets and prophecy were tied inextricably to the preaching of God’s Word and thereby to the interpretation of Scripture in the teachings of the early Protestant reformers.” Pak, The Reformation of Prophecy, 1–2.

82 Patrick Collinson, Archbishop Grindal 1519–1583 (London: Cape, 1979), 233–52.

83 Curtis Freeman, A Company of Women Preachers: Baptist Prophetesses in Seventeenth-Century England (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011), 3.

84 Freeman, A Company of Women Preachers, 7.

85 Freeman, A Company of Women Preachers, 13.

86 Freeman, A Company of Women Preachers, 14.

87 Freeman, A Company of Women Preachers, 15.

88 Freeman, A Company of Women Preachers, 17–18. Freeman’s book is dedicated to rehearsing the life and thought of six of these women.

89 Keith V. Thomas, “Women and the Civil War Sects,” Past & Present 13 (1958): 42–62.

90 McBeth, Women in Baptist Life, 28. McBeth rehearses the story of early American Baptist women, colonial and national, north and south. The study is fascinating, in that women were often accepted within Baptist churches as “elderesses” and “deaconesses,” as well as “prophetesses.” After 1800, the phenomenon of women preachers went into decline following the Union of the more Calvinistic and formal Regular Baptists with the more dynamic and experiential Separate Baptists in the south. McBeth, Women in Baptist Life, 37–47.

91 These same three texts are highlighted by the article on universal proclamation in the 1963 and 2000 versions of the Southern Baptist Convention’s official confession.

92 Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis [NIDNTTE], 5 vols (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 2:681.

93 Silva, NIDNTTE, 2:677.

94 Silva, NIDNTTE, 2:679.

95 Silva, NIDNTTE, 1:715.

96 G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, transl. G.W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:728–29.

97 Silva, NIDNTTE, 2:310.

98 As for the “evangelist,” Silva deems it “difficult to decide whether the reference is to an office or more generally to an activity.” Silva, NIDNTTE, 2:312.

99 Blomberg states of the debate over the role of women in ordained ministry, 1 Tim 2 “remains the primary battleground for debating that issue.” Craig L. Blomberg, “A Complementarian Perspective,” in Two Views of Women in Ministry, ed. Gundry and Beck, 165. Keener agrees this is “the one passage in the Bible that specifically prohibits women from teaching.” Craig S. Keener, “Another Egalitarian Perspective,” in ibid., 233. Schreiner agrees that it is “the fundamental text on this matter.” Schreiner, “Another Complementarian Perspective,” in ibid., 307.

100 Any appeal to 1 Cor 14:33–34 as a text that prohibits women entirely from speaking in church fails to take into account the manifest teaching of 1 Cor 11:5. The limit in chapter 14 shall be addressed below. Of 1 Cor 11:5, it has been said, “This passage presents one of the strongest arguments for allowing women to prophesy or pray in the church, yet with the restriction regarding the veil.” Dockery understands the veil in terms of a principle of a woman’s authority to worship equally alongside men. Dockery, “The Role of Women,” 368–69.

101 For a cursory treatment of our doctrine of the church leader, see Yarnell, “Article VI: The Church,” in The Baptist Faith and Message 2000: Critical Issues America’s Largest Protestant Denomination, ed. Douglas K. Blount and Joseph D. Wooddell (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 62–63.

102 Of particular interest in the present discussion are portions of the 6th and 8th affirmations, respectively: “In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2–16; 1 Tim 2:11–15).” “In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11–15, 3:1–13; Tit 1:5–9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God's will.”

103 Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992), 95–105.

104 Dockery, “The Role of Women,” 370–73.

105 Blomberg, “A Complementarian Perspective,” 165–72.

106 Blomberg, “A Complementarian Perspective,” 169.

107 Blomberg, “A Complementarian Perspective,” 169–70. For a contrary complementarian view, see Köstenberger’s argument that the conjunction’s common use requires two distinct activities. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12,” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ed. Köstenberger, Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995), 81–103.

108 Once they returned home, the woman prophet’s husband was commanded to serve as her point of reference if she required further elucidation beyond that finally expressed in the congregation (1 Cor 14:35).

109 Lea, 1, 2 Timothy, 99.

110 Lea, 1, 2 Timothy, 100.

111 Lea derived three applications from this text. “First, Paul’s words make little specific contribution to the question of female ordination.” “Second, the Pastoral Epistles and the entire New Testament envision a broad role for women in ministry.” “Third, the teaching of 1 Tim 2:12 appears to limit the role of women in ministry.” Lea, 1, 2 Timothy, 104.

112 Dockery, “The Role of Women,” 372.

113 Dockery, “The Role of Women,” 386.

The Strategic Importance of Ministry to Women Programs in Theological Education

1 Southern Baptist Convention, “The Baptist Faith and Message,” available at https://www.sbc.net.

2 “On The Dignity And Worth Of Women On The Occasion Of The One Hundredth Anniversary Of Women As Messengers To The Southern Baptist Convention,” available at https://www.sbc.net.

3 David Roach, “Women & the SBC: 100 years of ‘extraordinary input’ noted,” March 22, 2018, available at https://www.bpnews.net.

4 Diana Chandler, “Women’s Leadership Network begins blog, podcast, FB,” Baptist Press, April 5, 2019, available at https://www.bpnews.net.

5 Erin Roach, “Women & Work seeks to broaden Kingdom productivity,” Baptist Press, July 10, 2018, available at https://www.bpnews.net.

6 Richard Fry, “U.S. women near milestone in the college educated labor force,” Pew Research Center, June 20, 2019, available at http://www.pewresearch.org.

7 Ken Blanchard, Phil Hodges, and Phyllis Hendry. Lead Like Jesus Revisited: Lessons From the Greatest Leadership Role Model of All Time (Nashville, TN: W Publishing, 2016), 4.

8 “The Changing Face of Small Churches,” Vision, Fall 2014, 8, available at https://issuu.com/neworleansseminary/docs/visionfall2014_online?e=5726383/10939947.

9 David Roach, “’Remarkable’ number of women reported at SBC seminaries,” Baptist Press, September 22, 2017, available at https://www.bpnews.net.

10 “Religious Landscape Study: Gender Composition,” Pew Research Center, available at https://www.pewforum.org.

11 Emily Dean, “Men and Women in Evangelism: Keys to Relational Outreach and Disciplemaking,” in Engage: Tools for Contemporary Evangelism, ed. Craig Price (New Orleans, LA: NOBTS Press, 2019), 340.

12 Jen Wilkin, “A Place Set Apart,” Christianity Today, November 2018, 24.

13 “Woman’s Missionary Union,” Southern Baptist Convention, available at https://www.sbc.net.

14 Rhonda Kelley, “Women’s Enrichment Ministry: A Proposal for Southern Baptists” (paper presented to the Southern Baptist Convention, 1996).

15 Kelly D. King, Ministry to Women: The Essential Guide for Leading Women in the Local Church (Nashville, TN: LifeWay, 2018), 5–7.

16 Gloria Furman & Kathleen B. Nielson, eds., Word-Filled Women’s Ministry: Loving and Serving the Church (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 20.

17 Claude Howe, Seventy-Five Years of Providence and Prayer (New Orleans, LA: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993), 20.

18 SBC Women’s Advisory Council, “Women’s Advisory Council Final Report,” June 2017, 9–10, available at https://www.sbc.net.

19 Lisa McKay, You Can Still Wear Cute Shoes: and Other Great Advice from an Unlikely Pastors Wife (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 18.

20 Kassie Prather, “A Heart for Your Pastor's Wife,” Facts & Trends, March 10, 2018, available at https://www.lifeway.com/pastors/2018/3/10/heart-pastors-wife/.

21 Jeana Floyd, 10 Things Every Ministers Wife Needs to Know (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2010), 16.

22 Joe McKeever, “Pastor, Remember Your Wife Is the MOST Vulnerable Person in Your Church,” ChurchLeaders, October 2, 2017, available at https://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/170133-joe-mckeever-pastors-wife-is-the-most-vulnerable-person-in-your-church.html.

23 Lynne Dugan, Heart to Heart with Pastors Wives (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 1995), 105.

24 Tara Dew, “Survive or Thrive: an Exploration of the Preparedness of Southern Baptist Pastors’ Wives for Ministry” (EdD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2018).

25 Carolyn James, Half the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 19.

A Discussion on Women in Ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention

1 Gary Thomas, Sacred Influence (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 26.

Book Reviews

1 The above fractions do not take into account the genetic variation resulting from crossing-over and independent assortment of chromosomes during gamete formation, which can further obscure genetic ancestry in the distant past.

2 C. John Collins, Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1–11 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 168–69, 225–27.

3 “InterVarsity Press: The Genealogical Adam and Eve,” InterVarsity Press, available at https://www.ivpress.com/Media/Default/Downloads/Excerpts-and-Samples/5263-Appendixes.pdf.

4 Perry Miller, The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), ix.

5 See “Frequently Asked Questions About Biblical Counseling” in Counseling: How to Counsel Biblically, John MacArthur and The Master’s College Faculty (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 249–50.

6 See Heath Lambert, The Gospel and Mental Illness (Bedford, TX: Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, 2014), 40–41.

7 Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?, NACSBT 9 (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2010), 3–7.

8 Ron F. Hale, “Jerry Vines: The Expositor of the Christian Resurgence,” The Christian Index, October 2 2018, https://christianindex.org/vines-expositor-of-resurgance/.

9 See the following website: https://www.bestcommentaries.com/.