Tony_Ray

If these are the right premises, then the Primitive Baptist conclusions seem inescapable. The SBC promised you could cooperate without violence to conscience. If being Baptist means there are no enforceable standards, then cooperation without sin becomes impossible.

Now this I support/endorse/agree with.

Al Mohler has flip-flopped on several issues across the years. Here’s documentation of his flip-flop on this very issue, not even mentioning his original position of being an advocate at the annual meeting in his early ministry for women’s ordination. To place language in the SBC constitution granting future gatherings of the SBC to determine whether or not a given function a woman engages in, such as read an announcement a quote or cite a Scripture in the process; lead in praise and worship, give a committee report serving as chair; serving as VBS coordinator; doing the Scripture reading…or no matter what function a woman engages in….I ask myself as a lead pastor of a local church: why would I leave it up to a Mohler led/influenced SBC in a gathered SBC annual meeting to determine whether or not how a woman engaged in a “function” meets his/their approval? Al Mohler’s history gives plenty of good reasons not to trust his judgment on this issue, including his once support of The Lost Cause theory while serving as president of SBTS, and his stated belief that Harriet Tubman was wrong in her function as an abolitionist regarding slavery. Again, there’s nothing in the language of the Mohler Amendment that would prohibit a church being disfellowshipped because of well…sermon commentary on a church podcast. Over the next two years I believe the SBC governance documents that establishes a high threshold in cases like this to protect the convention from making a premature, ill thought out decision, will once again protect the convention relative to making a bad decision regarding placing limitations on the “function”, and gifts of women, that the Bible never placed on them.