

The Southern Baptist Convention's Use of Biblical Absolutism

in the Defense of Slavery, and the Persecution of Women and Homosexuals

by  
Rev. Dr. A. L. Carpenter

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PART I. The Unclaimed History of the Southern Baptist Convention

Chapter 1. Fabricating History

Chapter 2. Deconstructing the Myth

PART II. The Southern Baptist Convention and its use of Biblical Absolutism in the Support of Human Bondage

Chapter 3. Slavery: A Divine Institution

Chapter 4. Old Testament Arguments in the Defense of Human Bondage

Chapter 5. New Testament Arguments in the Defense of Human Bondage

PART III. The Southern Baptist Convention and its use of Biblical Absolutism in the Persecution of Women

Chapter 6. The Southern Baptist Convention and the "Woman Problem"

Chapter 7. The Biblical Argument for the Subordination of Women

PART IV. The Southern Baptist Convention and its use of Biblical Absolutism in its Persecution of Homosexuals

Chapter 8. The Southern Baptist Position on Homosexuality

Chapter 9. Old Testament Arguments Against Homosexuality

Chapter 10. New Testament Arguments Against Homosexuality

PART V. Jesus and the Absolutism of His Day

Chapter 11. The Hermeneutics of Jesus

PART VI. New Models of Interpretation for the Future

Chapter 12. Context, Consistency, and Common Sense

Chapter 13. Relativism vs. Absolutism

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

Introduction

I would permit no man, no matter what his color might be, to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him.  
—Booker T. Washington, _Up From Slavery_.

At its inception in 1845, the Southern Baptists voted to secede from the Baptists in the North over the right to own slaves. The Southern Baptists believed the Bible endorsed and advocated the right to practice human bondage. These Southern Baptists formed a convention known as the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The SBC has continued to use biblical absolutism to justify their support of slavery and to justify their persecution and discrimination against minorities and marginalized communities. Currently, the Constitution of the SBC states that no church "which acts to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior," is allowed to participate in the SBC (SBC Constitution, 2006). In addition, as late as 1984, the SBC openly considers females to be unviable candidates for any role in church life that might constitute a pastoral function (Resolution on the Ordination of Women, 1984). The SBC's theological acceptance of biblical absolutism continues to enable and justify discrimination against specific categories of individuals.

This book will explore these issues to determine if this discrimination erodes the perceived role of the SBC to be a "Light unto the world" (Matt. 4:14). Socially, this discrimination seems to reject the fullness of ministry and limits Christian fellowship based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. This rejection communicates an implied spiritual inferiority that creates distance between those who seek a relationship with God and the SBC.

These practices of discrimination are a problem because they injure people, causing a type of institutional violence, and ultimately preventing the SBC from carrying out its stated mission as defined in 2010 as a "convention of churches, whose missional [sic] vision is to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations" (SBC Mission Statement, 2010). The resources and time spent on discrimination erodes the ability of the SBC to carry out its mission. Furthermore, the accepted practice of discrimination against minorities and marginalized communities, for any reason, poorly represents Christianity.

This book is about a flawed hermeneutic, the practice of selective literalism, that has been used by the SBC since the times of human bondage in the 18th century. This flawed hermeneutic continues to be used into the 21st century to justify the persecution of homosexuals and the subordination of women.

Three terms will be frequently used in this book: Inerrancy, absolutism, and infallibility. The term inerrant, as used among Southern Baptists, is to claim the Bible contains no errors and is God's divine revelation to humankind ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ) _._ The term absolutism is used in a religious sense meaning there are absolute moral principles derived from divine authority. The term infallibility means the Bible is a "perfect treasure of divine instruction;" it has God as its author; and it is "totally true and trustworthy" ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ). These terms are common in SBC nomenclature and are included in adopted resolutions, position papers, and the _Baptist Faith and Message_. These terms become essential to certain doctrines that promote the subordination of women, attack homosexuals and, in the past, promote slavery. These three terms are essential for the promotion of SBC doctrines of persecution, and if at any time it might be demonstrated that the Bible is not inerrant, absolute, nor infallible, then these doctrines will have been shown to be meritless. This book will reveal the practice of selective literalism based upon the acceptance of inerrancy, absolutism, and infallibility is inconsistently applied and is not a sustainable position. The burden of proof falls upon those who make such claims of inerrancy and infallibility, and this book will argue that those claims are not backed by proof.

Because the Bible has been and is used as an authoritative device to oppress certain categories of individuals, it requires extraordinary evidence to substantiate its claims of authority. The evidence claimed by selective literalists will be examined in this book to determine if such authority has been satisfactory demonstrated.

There are better models of biblical interpretation that allow all people, regardless of race, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation, to share equally in the Christian faith without discrimination. These models will be presented as interpretive methods superior to the hermeneutic currently used by the SBC.

PART I

The Unclaimed History of the Southern Baptist Convention

Chapter 1

Fabricating History

Nobody had ever instructed him that a slave-ship, with a procession of expectant sharks in its wake, is a missionary institution, by which closely packed heathen are brought over to enjoy the light of the Gospel.

—Harriet Beecher Stowe, _The Minister's Wooing_.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has been able to successfully obscure its origins from its followers for over one hundred and fifty years. It has been successful because much historical information regarding the founding of the SBC was difficult to access and was only available at seminary libraries. There seemed to be very little interest in how and when the SBC came to be a denomination. Denominational history is rarely discussed among church members, or at the local and state denominational gatherings. A common phrase heard among Baptists is that the SBC is the only denomination in existence that has no founder other than Jesus Himself. To document such a claim inquirers are directed to a small book entitled, " _The Trail of Blood_ ," written in 1931 by Dr. James Milton Carroll who was the founding president of Oklahoma Baptist University and a leader in both the Texas State Convention and the SBC.

The full title of this small book is _The Trail of Blood: Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries or The History of Baptist Churches From the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day,_ and was the compilation of a series of five sermons delivered by Rev. Dr. J.M. Carroll of Texas. Dr. Carroll was a champion of the Texas Southern Baptists, and this book was written at a time when it was vital for Southern Baptists to dissociate themselves from their defense of the institution of slavery. Dr. Carroll came from a family that owned slaves, as many did at that time, and it was vital to create distance between the unimaginable evil of slavery and a denomination that sought to find a sense of legitimacy.

The fact that Carroll came from a slave holding family never hindered lionizing him or others like him in the pages of SBC history. However, it did necessitate a revisionist history for the sake of the growing denomination. His book was very successful at the time and still has its ardent followers today. It is much easier to teach in SBC churches that their denomination was founded by Jesus than to teach that their denomination not only was established by slave owners but slave owners who fought desperately to ensure the institution of slavery in the South would continue as a God ordained and approved institution.

In essence, the book traces Baptist origins over two thousand years beginning with Jesus. It might be pointed out that in the title of this book is the claim that "Christ" was their founder. It can be said that Christ indeed founded the Church, but the SBC has a historical record that substantiates the claim it was founded in Augusta, Georgia on May 8th, 1845. Nevertheless, the opinion of Dr. Carroll was widely accepted and is still considered to be the authorized history of the SBC by many Southern Baptists.

Dr. Carroll's history of the Southern Baptists starts by showing that Baptists are first "nicknamed" Christians (Acts 11:26), then are later known as Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Paulicans, Albigenses, Waldenses, Tertullianists, Paterines, Cathari, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, and Anabaptists. The reason why the Baptists come in so many different incarnations is in order they might survive the constant persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout his book Baptists are portrayed as the heroic and persecuted true church of God. This revisionist history is just the reverse of the founding of the SBC. Baptists in the South were neither heroic nor persecuted. They were the persecutors not the persecuted, and history demonstrates they were more shameful than heroic for the reason they more often defended slavery rather that opposed it. With such beginnings it is no wonder why the origins of the SBC is never discussed among Southern Baptists and when it is, it is in light of the _Trail of Blood._

As a young pastor, a senior pastor handed this book to me with great reverence. It was a story that he deeply believed and accepted as the true history of the denomination he served. In retrospect, he was passing down to me the true beginnings of the people known as the Southern Baptists. As Southern Baptists it was important that it was accepted that we were on the side of good and were a beacon of hope shining in a land of darkness.

_Trail of Blood_ was readily accepted by many as the true history of the churches of the SBC. It was published in 1931, a time when the South was still reeling from the effects of slavery. A scant sixty-five years has passed since the end of the Civil War and the collective memory of the role Baptists of the South played in the support of human bondage was still to be reckoned with.

In 1898, then president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, W.H. Witsitt dared to challenge the idea of Baptist secessionism or Baptist perpetuity, the theory that Baptists existed in an unbroken trail back to Jesus. For his efforts he was dismissed from his office he held. Just over fifty years after the founding of the SBC, there was already a total abandoning the idea that they might have been founded on the principle of the defense of slavery. These ideas (Baptist perpetuity) were the accepted and popular history of the SBC and it was a direct attack on authority and legitimacy to question them. It is on these principles which Carroll based his book, _The Trail of Blood_.

Many Baptists today find it difficult to believe that there was an actual date of creation of the SBC and that there were actually names attached to that founding document, none of which were Jesus or John the Baptist. The SBC was founded in the second week of May 1845, in Augusta, Georgia. Its first president was Rev. William B. Johnson, D.D., of South Carolina, who was an ardent _anti_ abolitionist, and the founding principles of the SBC were based on the acceptance of human bondage as permissible and acceptable and within full accordance of the divine will of God. The Baptist secessionist theory and the _Trail of Blood_ have no mention of the SBC, its beginnings, or the fact it was a firmly allied with the slave holders if the South. This is difficult for Southern Baptists to accept because the truth of their beginnings is too repulsive to accept. In retrospect, whom would we prefer to have as a founder, John the Baptist or Rev. William B. Johnson? In the _Trail of Blood,_ Carroll tells a story that obliquely alludes to the fact that Baptists come from the lineage of John the Baptist. Carroll writes:

These people are called many names from the time of Jesus to the current era and they are the constant target of persecution by the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Church of England and the Lutherans. They have survived by living in the mountains, valleys, forests and caves."

(Carroll 2010, 3-4).

Carroll claims that with access to a few scraps of the Bible these Christians, over the centuries, would persevere to become Southern Baptists who would establish the SBC. Given the truth of the history of the SBC, it can easily be understood why this view was so widely accepted and that any other suggestion that it might be otherwise was going to be considered ecclesiastical heresy.

The textbook of Baptist history taught at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, in Mill Valley, California, the SBC seminary in the West, was entitled, _A Short History of the Baptists_ by Henry C. Vedder. This book, over four hundred pages in length, devotes only five pages to the founding of the SBC and its role in the support of slavery in America. Vedder points out the reason for the dissolution of the relationship between the Baptists of the South and the Baptists of the North was centered on the question of the institution of slavery. He reports that there was a "growing sentiment among the churches, especially among Baptist churches, that a Christian man ought not to be a holder of slaves" (Vedder 1907, 345). This growing awareness of the inhumanity of slavery was beginning to misshape the idea of Christian benevolence. There is nothing in Vedder's history about Baptist churches owning slaves, Baptist pastors owning slaves, or Baptist scholars owning slaves.

Having graduated from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and having studied Vedder's book, I believe the SBC would have been better served to ensure ministers attending their institution be given all the necessary and accurate information in order to pastor a SBC church. Otherwise, those outside the SBC know more about the history of the SBC than those who graduate from SBC Seminaries and pastor SBC churches. Even after graduating from seminary if, at any time I might have been confronted with the idea that our denomination began in 1845, under a cloud of evil, I would be quick correct him/her with the true history of Baptists as proscribed by Dr. J.M. Carroll of Texas, as it was the only history I knew.

The history of the SBC, the largest Protestant denomination in the world, claiming over 16 million adherents, 45,000 churches and 5,000 missionaries goes unreported or worse, reported in a revisionist fashion. This occurs in some part because secularist historians are simply not interested in the histories of religious denominations. Therefore, when revisionist history occurs it is not a matter of great importance.

There are of course, exceptions to that rule such as the late Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) who took great pleasure revealing the objective history of any religion or denomination. While the slavery question may go unnoticed by those who should be the most acquainted with it (Southern Baptists) it does not escape the watchful eye of Mr. Hitchens. He accurately quotes Fredrick Douglas, a former slave, when he says, "the most devout Christians made the most savage slaveholders" (Hitchens quoting Douglas 2007, 178).

When an objective history about a denomination is written by some not of that denomination it is often viewed as suspect and unreliable. The historian may be considered as someone outside the faith who is writing from a hostile position. When Hitchens writes of Luther, Calvin, Wesley and other leaders that have been lionized by their respective denominations, some consider his writing to be the work of an avowed atheist and enemy of the church. Many histories of religious denominations can be easily dismissed as prejudicial.

Many denominations favor histories that have been revised because every denomination has been born into the crucible of their cultural context. This context may have been racially charged or violent or embarrassing.

There might be something said about the church resisting culture when that culture is immersed in aberrant evil. Southern Baptists in particular view themselves as ones who are to work to reform their society. The _Baptist Faith and Message_ , the handbook of SBC doctrine, states:

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will their loyalty to Christ and His truth. ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ).

As can be seen by this statement, the SBC clearly views its role as a denomination is to transcend culture and manipulate culture until it conforms to their understanding of what it best for America. However, it is culture that has shaped the SBC from its very beginnings and continues to do so as evidenced by their willingness to support capital punishment, any and every war the United States becomes involved in, and the constant persecution of the gay community. It is difficult to find an instance when the SBC has taken a minority position on issues of morality and/or human decency. It is difficult to summon the courage to speak out against one's own culture. But it has been done before and is always admirable when it accomplished.

Since 1991, when the World Wide Web became a reality and information that was once inaccessible became widely available, the ability for any institution to conceal their origins became impossible. The advent of the Internet is most likely the greatest paradigm shift in the history of the humanity. Thomas Kuhn writing in the _Structure of Scientific Revolution_ (Kuhn 1962) argues there exists revolutions in scientific thought that upset entire intellectual concepts. This is certainly the case as it applies to the age of information. Now, the histories of virtually all institutions are available to those who wish to seek out such information. What was once the private domain of researchers is now available to anyone with access to the Internet. In the past, church history was controlled by the gatekeepers of available knowledge, (pastors, priests, rabbis,), but now that information is available to everyone who has a desire to know. No longer is it possible to hide the truth. Now, those in authority are faced with the choice of acknowledging the truth of their past or continuing to falsify the past and risk being marginalized as irrelevant. Historical revision is an intentional effort to distort true history and manipulate into a narrative that better serves the present. In spite of any reason for revisionist history it cannot be in the same category as truth and if it is not true then the only other category is that it is false.

Some hold to the idea that religion should provide comfort even if it is a false comfort. If this is the case, then some think it is a valid reason for revising history. If, for example, Southern Baptists wish to believe they are direct descendants of John the Baptist or Jesus and comfort comes from such belief, then some believe false or revisionist history is in some way validated.

Until Christianity can embrace its past, it can never consider itself to be an institution based on truth. If a denomination is not based on truth, then it is based on falsehoods. Revisionist history means we know the facts but we do not like the facts, as they do not represent the image we desire to project of ourselves in the present. Therefore, we change the past to conform our preferred view of the present.

Who are we? Where did we come from? Are our heroes in fact anti-heroes? Can we be better than our founders? Do we dissociate ourselves from our institutions because of our ill founding? All these are questions that may have resided in the minds of a few and now reside in the minds of many due to the advent of the information explosion, the Internet, and the incredible paradigm shift of new ways of thinking.

The incredible popularity of public atheists Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett is causing many to explore the roots of their faith. In essence, there is nowhere to hide from truth. Once, the preachers, pastors, rabbis, imams and all the other religious potentates and authorities controlled all significant information. There now exists free access to vast amounts of information regarding religious denominations, both good and bad. It is no longer possible for religious institutions to keep information from the general public that they may consider to be damaging.

Christine Wicker author of the _Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crises inside the Church,_ in an article to the Huffington Post says:

What Baptist leaders have known for years is finally public: The Southern Baptist Convention is a denomination in decline. Half of the SBC's 43,000 churches will have shut their doors by 2030 if current trends continue. And unless God provides a miracle, the trends will continue. The denomination's growth rate has been declining since the 1950s. The conservative/fundamentalist takeover 30 years ago was supposed to turn the trend around; it didn't make a bit of difference. Leaders said it did. Reporters and politicians believed it did. But the numbers kept going down until they have become obvious to everyone. (Wicker 2008)

Ms. Wicker is a Southern Baptist and is well aware of the ongoing struggles within the SBC. There are clear indicators of decreasing membership within the SBC, and its influence in public life is waning. A new beginning might be possible if it includes an abandoning of the founding myths and acknowledge the role the SBC played in the enslavement of over four million people based on the color of their skin. Rather than even entertaining such an idea, at the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention held in Fort Worth, Texas a committee was appointed to seek to change the name of the SBC. In the end, the SBC decided to keep the name "Southern Baptist Convention" as its legal name but also use the name "Great Commission Baptist" in order to find distance from its affiliation with the Southern States.

It is yet to be seen if a name change will be sufficient to sustain the founding myths of the SBC. A Southern Baptist Church may change its name to the Great Commission Baptist Church in an attempt to disguise its affiliation with a denomination that is slowing losing its influence and moral authority within its community, but it is impossible for a name to change to change past events. A name change cannot eradicate past crimes against humanity.

Chapter 2

Deconstructing the Myth

I pity from the bottom of my heart any nation or body of people that is so unfortunate as to get entangled in the net of slavery.

—Booker T. Washington, _Up From Slavery_

Slavery was the question at hand. Human bondage was the singular reason for the division between the Baptists of the North and the Baptists of the South. This reason is clear in the documents, sermons and tracts written by the Southern Baptists during the period 1825-1865. It is not until after the Civil War, when the fortunes of the Southern Baptists fell with the fortunes of the Confederates that they began to revise their history by insinuating that the division that founded the SBC in 1845 was not based solely on advocating human bondage. Over the passage of time, the SBC argued that the division was doctrinal and not based on the issue of slavery.

It is difficult to believe that any expression of the Christian religion might be founded upon the defense of human bondage. This was the beginning of one of the darkest periods of Christianity in America. Not only because churches, pastors, Christians and others laid claim to the right of owning, selling and inheriting other humans but claiming the right to do so was authorized by God as revealed in His holy writ. According to many, including Dr. Richard Fuller, the third president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the largest slaveholder in South Carolina, the Bible not only supported slavery but also as Fuller argued, "What God sanctioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New Testament cannot be sin" (Smith 1972, 133). There was no greater voice for endorsement of the institution of slavery than from Richard Fuller. In the 1840s this renowned Southern Baptist, pastor of the Beaufort Baptist Church of North Carolina publicly debated slavery with his counterpart in the North, Rev. Francis Wayland of Providence, R.I. This debate was a public discourse printed in serial fashion and eventually made available in book form in 1847, entitled, _Domestic Slavery considered as a Scriptural Institution: In a Correspondence Between The Rev, Richard Fuller of Beauport, S. C. and The Rev. Francis Wayland of Providence._ This small book, alongside the Bible was all any slaveholder needed to justify the ownership of slaves. Fuller is considered to be one of the leading historic figures today of the SBC yet was a slave owner and a vocal proponent of the institution of slavery, to the great dismay of those Southern Baptists who are familiar with his history.

Despite his avid defense of the institution of slavery, including the buying, holding and selling slaves, Fuller went on to become the third president of the Southern Baptist Convention. It would not have been possible, at this time, to elect anyone other than a slaveholder. Fuller was the perfect candidate for the presidency of the SBC because he was affluent, a slaveholder, eloquent, popular, and highly educated. The following is taken from his public correspondence with Francis Wayland, in his defense of slavery and reflect Fuller's main points:

  * Slavery is clearly sanctioned by Scriptures both Old and New Testaments.

  * In the New Testament the practice of slavery is at least tolerated.

  * The Bible condemns the _abuse_ of slavery but permits the system itself.

  * The New Testament never calls for the manumission of slaves.

  * The abuses of the system do not invalidate the system.

  * The crime is not slaveholding but cruelty to slaves.

  * Slavery is like a father looking over his children. (Fuller vs. Wayland 1847)

These were some of the arguments made by one of the most respectable Southern Baptist clergymen in 1847. The words of the published debate were exactly the words slaveholders both North and South longed to hear. Not only the words of a respected divine but also the affirmation from the Word of God. It is no wonder that it was said that no slaveholder traveled far without his/her copy of the arguments of the Rev. Richard Fuller for these arguments were not a matter of opinion but were based on the Bible. In the court of public opinion, the defense given by Francis Wayland was weak and ineffectual. He simply could not launch an effective counter attack from the Bible demonstrating that it condemned slavery. If anything, his counter argument worked in favor of the pro slavery movement in that it revealed there was no defense against slavery coming from the Bible. If the highly respected Francis Wayland, who was President of Brown University, was incapable of mounting a competent and complete repudiation of slavery using the Bible then there must be none to mount. At best, Wayland argues that perhaps God did not reveal all of the moral law on this matter so the Hebrews did not know it was wrong, and thus they had slaves (Fuller vs. Wayland 1847, 50).

Richard Fuller's place in SBC history is important not only because he was the president of the SBC during its formative years, being elected for two terms in 1859 and 1861, but also because he baptized Annie Armstrong, the founder of the Women's Missionary Union, and James Petigru Boyce, one of the founders of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky (Caner 2003, 9). Richard Fuller's legacy is one that must be left untainted due to his connection to Armstrong and Boyce, important figures in the SBC.

To question the character of the early founders of the SBC is tantamount to heresy within the SBC. An example might be found in an interview with the author of a biography on James Petigru Boyce, _James Petigru Boyce: A Southern Baptist Statesman,_ by a professor of history at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Texas. The question put to the author, Thomas J. Nettles, was "How would you respond to someone who said he would never read your book for the simple fact that James P. Boyce was from the South and owned slaves?" Dr. Nettles replied:

I would try to resist the production of a long list of insults to the intelligence of one so bigoted, narrow-minded, unthinking and hypocritical as even to think such a thing. (Nettles, 2010).

This answer demonstrates a common tactic employed by many who wish to excuse the evil practiced by those we wish to make into heroic figures. If we take all the evil committed and weigh that evil against all the good committed, there should be a cancelling out of one over the other. James Boyce's mentor and pastor was Fuller, the slaveholder and vocal advocate of slave holding. Boyce is on record of owning slaves himself and at one time saying, that he was an "ultra pro slavery man" (Broadus 1893, 185).

It would be inconceivable to the point of denial that these same men including Fuller and Boyce, who could speak passionately about a world of lost souls also could speak just as passionately in defense of human slavery. While the SBC heralds the good that Fuller accomplished on the behalf of the SBC, they can never use the good to justify the evil committed in his endorsement of, and his participation in slavery. Fuller was raised in a privileged slaveholding family, was afforded a sound education at Harvard and had a wife and three daughters. It is difficult to understand how one that came to have so much in life becomes the spokesperson for the denial of basic human desires to the people brought from Africa. An entry in Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia describes Fuller's character in these terms:

No pastor in the denomination was more highly esteemed by the representative men of other churches than he, and none was more frequently urged to lend the influence of his name and counsel to those larger and more comprehensive benevolent organizations which embraced within their scope great communities and groups of churches. (Cathcart 1880, 755).

Were it not for men such as Fuller and Boyce, one could surmise if there would have ever had been the Civil War with its entire corpus of human suffering. If the doctors of religion had led their congregations into accepting the argument that human bondage was unsupported by scripture and abhorrent to God and that they (slave holders) had to give up their slaves or give up God, there may have not been a need for the military defense of slavery. Arguments borrowed from the Bible, and thus given divine authority, have led to many atrocities other than the practice of slavery and continue to do so today. It is impossible to believe those who lent God's authority to the institution of slavery were not also culpable in bringing about the Civil War. The biblical defense of slavery provided the concept that God was on the side of those who owned slaves and the religious incentive is the only incentive greater than nationalism that will lead to killing and dying for a "cause."

It was a simple matter for the industrialized North, who had little use for slaves, to condemn slavery in the South that depended on slave labor for their economy and society to demand they give up slavery as being indecent and an embarrassment to the Nation. The South may have capitulated having no moral argument at all and only making an argument of expediency. Then came the Christian apologists such as Fuller who brought the full weight of God on the side of the South. No longer was the South without a valid argument. Charles Wilson in _Baptized in Blood; The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865-1920,_ asserts the southern religions laid the basis for secession by their literal interpretation of the Bible lending unqualified and widespread belief in the South that "God was on our side" (Wilson 2009, 4).

In the battle between culture and religious belief, culture carried the day. Because slavery was widely accepted, protected by the laws of the State and supported by authoritative religious figures who argued that it was good for the country and good for the slave, it became a simple matter to accept and endorse slavery. Even though there were those in the South who opposed slavery on moral grounds, to be caught doing so made one appear anti American and most certainly anti God. Slave ownership was not only a right but even considered by some to be a duty.

In 1872, the founding documents of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary states "God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and govern all creatures and all events" (Baker 2000, 138). Because slavery does exist then it must be the will of God, otherwise God would bring it to an end. This made perfect sense to the Baptists in the South. The proslavery advocates had a willing audience for their strong arguments while the abolitionists had a skeptical audience at best with arguments supported by sophistry. The racist attitudes of many of the Northern Baptists left a halfhearted desire to engage the great Baptist orators from the south.

It can be safely said that both Baptists in the North and in the South were guilty of slaveholding and slaveholding attitudes. While the abolitionist movement was by far the strongest in the North, there were nevertheless many churches and church members in the North who were slaveholders. It was because the North was not as dependent upon slaves to the same degree as were those in the South, the idea of manumission took root more readily. However, with this movement of abolitionism came with it the desire for colonization or the repatriation of the Negro back to Africa. The Baptists in the North greatly feared the results of manumission as much as the South. It is a misconception to think Northern Baptists were of higher moral character than their counter parts in the South. The Northern Baptists were quick to embrace emancipation because there was no enculturation to keep them. Instead, they feared what they referred to as:

This unhappy people are rapidly spreading a fearful taint, an alarming virus through all the relations of general society. This taint, this virus is not only affecting the morals but even the blood of the American people. Therefore, the American Colonization Society may prevent incalculable mischief and ruin to this country. (Smith 1972, 97).

The idea of the polluting the blood of the American people was the result of a belief that the white race was superior to the black race in every degree and if these people were given their freedom to intermingle the results might be an amalgamation of Saxon purity. There was no greater fear among whites during this period than the fear of amalgamation. This is what drove the popularity of the colonization movement. Their conscience felt that there was a remote possibility that it might be unchristian to own another human, however it was not even to be considered these Africans would dare to intermingle among their Saxon counterparts with any idea of equality.

The irony of the pure blood idea was that the whites had not been subject to the African intrusion into their bloodlines but it was the whites intruding upon the bloodlines of the Africans. The body of the female slave did not belong to herself or her husband, if she had been allowed a husband, but belonged completely to her master and the sons of the master. Many of these African women bore the children of the white slave owners yet there was a universal social understanding that these children were never to be considered to have been fathered by the slave holder or his sons. These children were often light skinned and were recognized as children born into slavery. This was the unquestioned privilege of the white master. Not only did he, the slaveholder, get to exploit these women but also in doing so he increased his holdings in the slave market. In the genteel South it was considered poor form to inquire where the light skinned African children came from and why they seem to resemble the slave owner and their male heirs. It was a burden the wives of the slave owners had to quietly bear. The very fact that this was occurring while maintaining an argument of racial purity and "bloodline" is intellectually unsupportable.

At the time there were very few voices from the major denominations speaking against the institution of slavery. There came to be over four million African slaves in America, and if one had the means to do so, one could purchase as many slaves as desired. It was approved by the clergy, sanctioned by law, and accepted within every community both North and South. There were some that accepted the theory that Africans were not even of the human race but a third species. There existed the animal kingdom, then the human kingdom, and right in the middle was the African (Smith 1972, 157). The idea of polygenesis was embraced because this theory rationalized the argument that Africans were _not_ made in the image of God. This idea made it possible, for many, to justify treating Africans as animals and not extending them the full benefits of being human.

In the years leading up to the Civil War, one would be hard pressed to hear a persuasive voice against slavery from the Southern Baptists. There were very few voices willing to call for the complete emancipation of slaves and to openly challenge the powerful Christian apologists. The most remarkable individual that spoke against slavery was James O'Kelly, a Methodist preacher. In 1785, O'Kelly freed his one slave Dianna and denounced slavery wherever he went and to whoever would listen. He is quoted as saying:

If there be such a being in existence as may be called God, who was the author of this tragedy (slavery), it must be one of those gods that ascend from the bottomless pit. Such a god I defy in the name and strength of Jesus and proclaim eternal war against him. (Smith 1972, 42).

O'Kelly spoke these words when it was universally accepted that the institution of slavery was an accepted doctrine based on the Bible. Slaveholders found a safe haven under the authority of the Bible, whereas men who rejected such a proposition were marginalized and often forced from their churches. O'Kelly eventually left the Methodist denomination and started his own church which grew into what is known today as the United Church of Christ, claiming over one million members. (Humble 2008).

It took civil authority to bring an end to the institution of slavery in America. In the South, the Baptists fought alongside the Confederate soldiers to do everything in their strength to ensure that the system of human bondage remained in place. The Bible in one hand and a musket in the other, Southern preachers offered up their service to the cause. There were so many Southern Baptist preachers who fought in the Civil War that many churches were left vacant or in the hands of lay people to carry on the work at home.

One of these celebrated Southern Baptist preachers-soldiers was Rev. Isaac Taylor Tichenor, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Birmingham, Alabama, who would later become the first president of the Home Mission Board of the SBC. Rev. Tichenor was one of those many Southern Baptist pastors that picked up a gun and fought with the Confederate Army. Tichenor was universally celebrated for his sharpshooting ability. At the Battle of Shiloh in 1862, he killed a Union Colonel, a Captain, and four privates with his Colt repeating rifle (Brinsfield 2005, 98). The Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives entry on Tichenor only mentions he was a chaplain in the Alabama division, but it goes on to say that:

For a year during the Civil War he served as Chaplain of the 17th Alabama Regiment, not confining himself strictly to his prescribed duties, for he acquired reputation as a sharpshooter and at the Battle of Shiloh went to the front of his regiment and rallied the wavering lines. (SBC Historical Library/Tichenor 2012).

It is not difficult to see why the Southern Baptists are not excited to reveal that one of their celebrated heroes of the Home Mission Board was also renowned for his ability to kill Union soldiers in the defense of the Southern tradition to own, sell, and inherit slaves. While it is difficult to discover that many leaders thought to be examples of courageous faith turned out to perpetuate the evil of human bondage, it is, however, far better to know the truth.

Another outspoken leader of the Southern Baptists was Richard Furman. Richard Furman, of whom Furman University is named, was one of the Southern Baptists' most prolific writers on the defense of slavery and also one of South Carolina's largest slaveholders. He was the first president of the Triennial Convention and president of the South Carolina State Baptist Convention. Furman, also, was very prolific and proud to represent the Southern Baptist justification of slavery. He used the authority of his office as the president of South Carolina Baptist Convention, to write a letter in 1822 to the Governor of South Carolina giving a defense to the institution of slavery as upheld by the Bible and as believed by the Baptists of South Carolina. It is difficult to ascertain if this letter was at the request of the Governor John L. Wilson to clear up any moral doubts he may have had about slavery or, as Furman suggests, it was simply his privilege to give a defense of slavery to argue against the suspicion that holding humans as chattel may in any way be unwise or sinful.

The Rev. Dr. Furman's arguments are summarized from the pamphlet that was printed from his letter to Governor Wilson entitled: _Rev. Dr. Richard Furman's Exposition of the Views of the Baptists, Relative to the Coloured Population of the United States in a Communication to the Governor of South Carolina:_

  * The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scripture, both by precept and example.

  * Slavery, when tempered with humanity and justice, is a state of tolerable happiness: equal, if not superior to that which many poor enjoy in countries reputed free.

  * A master has a scriptural right to govern his slaves so as to keep them in subjection; to demand and receive from them reasonable service; and to correct them for the neglect of duty, for their vices and transgressions.

  * A bond servant (slave) may be treated with justice and humanity as a servant and a master may, in an important sense, be the guardian and even father of his slaves. They become a part of his family. (Furman, Exposition of Views of Baptists 1838).

When we read this defense of slavery we must be reminded this is not the argument of an agnostic philosopher. This is the argument of a highly respected Baptist theologian of the South. Furman was the first president of the Triennial Convention and the residing president of South Carolina Baptist Convention. This was a man whose voice would be heard above all other voices of his day. He spoke the words all slaveholders longed to hear. Slavery was not only supported in the Bible, but it is also good for the slave himself or herself. Slave owners were convinced that slavery was justified because it rescued the African from his primitive country. His pagan religions and his violent world are now behind him, and he can enter the world of the white man, to learn of his language and his religion. Or, as Booker T. Washington so eloquently put it, "No white American ever thinks any other race is wholly civilized until he wears the white man's clothes, eats the white man's food, speaks the white man's language, and profess the white man's religion," (Washington 1962, 98).

These are only some of the slavery advocates who played a role in defining the views of the Baptists in the South. From these arguments came the identification of southern religion affirming succession and becoming tightly intertwined in the cause of the Confederacy. So closely aligned was this relationship between the cause of the Confederacy and the Baptists of the South, the SBC could have been rightly named the Confederate Baptist Convention. Had such a name change been suggested during the era of the Civil War, it is unlikely that it would have met much resistance.

The argument that the Baptists in the South broke from its Northern counterpart based on anything other than the issues of slavery is unsupportable. Charles Wilson says that slavery was the "crystallizing factor in their (SBC) emergence" (Wilson 2009, 10). Leon McBeth, a SBC historian and professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary states, "Slavery was the main issues that led to the 1845 schism; that is a blunt historical fact" (as quoted in Copeland 2002, 7). The false idea that the split was based on theological issues is put to rest by the opening statements of first president of the SBC, and a slaveholder William B. Johnson's address on the origin of the SBC in Augusta, Georgia in 1845:

To the Brethren in the United States; to the congregation connected with the respective Churches; and to all candid men. A painful division has taken place in the missionary operations of the American Baptists. We would explain the origin, the principles and the objects of that division, or the particular circumstances in which the organization of the Southern Baptist Convention became necessary. Let not the extent of this disunion be exaggerated. At the present time it involves only the foreign and Domestic Missions of the denomination. Northern and Southern Baptists are still brethren. They differ in no article of faith. (William B. Johnson speech, Baptist Studies 2007).

Johnson goes on to point out that in the Constitution of the General Baptists, it does not discriminate between slaveholding and non-slaveholding. In fact there had been missionaries previously appointed from one of the largest slaveholding churches. There is little doubt that the division between Northern and Southern Baptists was clearly a result of the issue of human bondage (William B. Johnson Speech, Baptist Studies 2007).

It was at the Triennial Convention in 1844, where the division occurred. The Triennial Convention was a meeting of Baptists that occurred every three years. This was an organization of Baptists existing for the purpose of sending foreign and home missionaries. The formal name of the Triennial Convention was the _General Missionary Convention of the_ _Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign and Home Missions._ The question at hand was whether it is sinful to appoint slaveholders as missionaries. The Baptists of the South forced the issue in 1845, by placing a slaveholder in nomination for appointment. In December of 1845, the Board of the Convention voted that "If anyone who shall offer himself for missionary, having slave, should insist on retaining them as property, they could not appoint him" (Johnson, 1845). To counter this argument the Georgia Baptist Convention presented James Reeve, a slaveholder, as a candidate to be appointed as a missionary. Mr. Reeves was rejected by a vote of seven to five (Smith 1972, 126). From this context was born the SBC.

In 1995, after over a hundred and thirty years where not a single official acknowledgement was made concerning the role the SBC played in the advocating for the institution of slavery and the Biblical right to own slaves, the SBC announced they would consider apologizing for their role in the institution of slavery in the 19th century.

The Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta, Georgia in 1995 adopted the following resolution:

_Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention_

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Sesquicentennial meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, assembled in Atlanta, Georgia, June 20-22, 1995, unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we affirm the Bible's teaching that every human life is sacred, and is of equal and immeasurable worth, made in God's image, regardless of race or ethnicity (Genesis 1:27), and that, with respect to salvation through Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for (we) are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28); and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest, and we recognize that the racism which yet plagues our culture today is inextricably tied to the past; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27); and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we ask forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters, acknowledging that our own healing is at stake; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we hereby commit ourselves to eradicate racism in all its forms from Southern Baptist life and ministry; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to be doers of the Word (James 1:22) by pursuing racial reconciliation in all our relationships, especially with our brothers and sisters in Christ (1 John 2:6), to the end that our light would so shine before others, that they may see (our) good works and glorify (our) Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16); and

Be it finally RESOLVED, That we pledge our commitment to the Great Commission task of making disciples of all people (Matthew 28:19), confessing that in the church God is calling together one people from every tribe and nation (Revelation 5:9), and proclaiming that the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only certain and sufficient ground upon which redeemed persons will stand together in restored family union as joint-heirs with Christ. (SBC Resolution on

It can be seen here that the same Bible that was being used to advance all the arguments for human bondage is now being used to excuse and cleanse those whose ancestors participated in human bondage. It might be noticed that of all Bible verses used in this apology, only one as anything to do with slavery. The verses selected are: Genisis1:27; 3:20; Leviticus 4:27; Ps.19:13; Matthew 5:16;28:19; Acts 10:34-35;17:26; Romans 8:17; Galatians 3:28; James 1:22; and Revelation 5:9, of which only Galatians 3:28 specifically address the idea of a slave being equal to all members of the Christian community. However, in citing Galatians 3:28, the resolution clearly states that this verse is to be interpreted "with respect to salvation" and not to be taken as a verse that implies equality of slave to the free. Note also the idea stated "that our own healing is at stake" implies a selfish motive for the whole attempt of contrition. In addition, there is no call for reparation, day of mourning, or any other material act of sorrowful contrition. If these Bible verses show the evil of slavery, then why did the SBC luminaries in the 19th century not use them to argue against slavery?

This apology does not apologize at all for slavery but instead it apologizes for racism. The only time the word apology is used is to "apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic _racism in our lifetime_ ; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously." Racism, as terrible as it is, cannot be equated with slavery. There is no apology offered for the role the SBC played in the continuation of the practice of human bondage. In fact this apology reverses the role the SBC played in slavery and refers to it as the "role slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention. In addition to the lack of apology for the SBC's role in slavery, the other glaring omission is there is no offer of restitution. Not even a day of sorrow, contrition and prayer is offered, just an apology for racism that might have been done "consciously or unconsciously."

The context of this resolution arose out of a growing awareness among African Americans of the role Southern Baptists played in the defense of slavery and their subsequent failure to acknowledge and assume the responsibility for the actions of their founding fathers. As the number of African American Churches increased within the Southern Baptist Convention there became a greater awareness for an official acknowledgement of the historical beginnings of the SBC. One hundred and fifty years after the founding of the SBC the first resolution was adopted acknowledging the role the SBC played in the institution of slavery.

By way of contrast, in 1987, a group of churches dissatisfied with the fundamentalist direction of the SBC broke off and formed the Southern Alliance of Churches, later to be renamed the Alliance of Baptist Churches. In 1990, they adopted the following resolution (quoted in part):

A Call to Repentance

Adopted March 10, 1990, by the Southern Baptist Alliance

A Statement on Racism and Repentance.

In the past several years the German Baptists have publicly repented of their compliance with the Nazi regime. In the summer of 1988 the Soviet Communist Party in like manner publicly repented of the sins of Joseph Stalin and of their own sins against the Soviet people and against the people of the world. These acts of confession have reminded Southern Baptists that there is a significant sin in our own heritage for which we have never publicly repented. One of the precipitating factors in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention was the protection of the institution of slavery and of slave owners in the South. The sins of slavery and of condoning slavery committed by Southern Baptists are a spiritual blight upon the relationships between African-Americans and whites in the south that has lasted unto this generation. The time is long overdue for Southern Baptists to repent of these sins. We move, therefore, that the members of the Southern Baptist Alliance meeting on this March 10, 1990, in St. Louis, Missouri, as members of the Southern Baptist family, publicly repent and apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and perpetuating the sin of slavery prior to and during the Civil War. (Southern Baptist Alliance, 1990).

When these two resolutions are compared, it reveals that the SBC still refuses to acknowledge its guilt in its involvement in and the protection of slavery. The Baptist Alliance compares their actions with some of the most heinous crimes in modern history, while the SBC is more concerned with its past association with racism. The SBC quotes from the Bible thirteen times in its resolution but never once says the same Bible was used in the defense of slavery, and was in fact, the most powerful tool in the defense of slavery. In turn, the Alliance of Baptists quotes the Bible only once saying that God may visit the sins of the past upon the children of this age (Num. 14:18-19).

Simple human decency tells us it is wrong to enslave another human being. We do not need religion of any sort to point out that human bondage is evil. Jennifer Clancy in _Slavery as a Moral Problem_ writes:

Inevitably, it seems someone insists that Christian slaveholders surely know deep down that owning another person was wrong. I do not think this is the case. Our moral instincts are profoundly shaped by our culture. (Clancy 2011, 101).

It is possible for enculturation to be so powerful it can eclipse human reason and such basic truths such as basic human needs, freedom, justice and liberty. The greatest minds of the 19th century, and all their followers were utterly convinced that not only was slavery an important part of America but it was a biblical institution founded by God and anything founded by God must be just and cannot be a sin.

The other possible statement is that the Bible advocates slavery and slave holding in those Southern preachers were correct in its use to defend slavery. However, if the Bible can be so perverted to be made to speak in the defense of slavery, it can also be made to speak in defense of other instances of terrible violence such as, genocide, sexism, war, prostitution, infanticide, animal sacrifice, capital punishment, discrimination against the handicapped, cannibalism, anti-Semitism, witch burning, executing homosexuals, child abuse, murder, adultery, and other atrocities.

It could be said that if the Bible guided people of faith into such gross error in the past, it can be used to such ends in the future. There has to be sound hermeneutical principles to guard against the persecution of anyone using the authority of God as the guarantee of such persecution.

Knowing what we know of the history of the SBC and its inability to embrace its regrettable past, one wonders why an African American would wish to associate with the SBC. It would be understandable for an African American not only to reject the SBC but also to reject the God of the SBC and the Bible that made slavery possible. A black Union soldier watching his former Confederate master being led away said, "Hello, Massa; bottom rail on top dis time" (Litwack 1979, 102). Things have changed and the African American no longer needs the Baptists or any other authority to tell them what the Bible says. "Bottom rail on top," and African Americans can see for themselves that the illegitimate use of the Bible robbed their ancestors of their freedom.

While writing this book, I ask a black pastor why he was a Southern Baptist, and he replied, "Because of the financial support they give our church." When he said that I thought of the advice African American author Ralph Ellison's grandfather gave him on his deathbed:

Live with you head in the lion's mouth. I want you to overcome 'em with yeses, undermine 'em with grins, agree 'em to death and destruction, let 'em swoller you till they vomit or bust wide open. (Litwack 1998, preface).

It seems as if the bottom rail is on top now and perhaps the African American does not need the SBC as much as the SBC would like to think.

The chief reason why so many people were led to believe God ordained human bondage was a flawed hermeneutic. Any method of biblical interpretation that results in the persecution of people or groups of people is in error. The idea that the Bible is absolute in all matters, without error, and the final word in all matters concerning the regulation of human behavior and society is prone to error. Hermeneutics is one of the least known areas of study for those who have not had the opportunity to attend a seminary. In addition, the study of hermeneutics is not something that should be given a light pass over or something that is taken in seminary and then forgotten five years later. The study of hermeneutics is without question the most important of all theological disciplines for without a sound understanding of how to interpret the Bible in a consistent, reliable, and accurate fashion, the Bible can be used to support many doctrines that can be very abusive.

Historically, those who pastor SBC churches have had a limited ministerial education. One of the reasons for the spread of the SBC in the past has been its dependence on the lay preacher, or the itinerant preacher. Currently, there are no education requirements to become a pastor of a SBC church, nor any education requirements for ordination. Every church is free to call and ordain, as their pastor, any person they desire. This call is usually based on their ability to preach. This has been an ongoing problem among SBC pastors and has fueled the continued misinterpretation of the Bible.

The SBC has a history that is shameful and regrettable. The heroes of the SBC are anti-heroes. And for this reason it was concealed for so long. The information age has made historical documents that were once locked away in the archives of faraway seminaries more available for scrutiny by all interested parties. This brings to light, the true story of the SBC. One thing the SBC has yet to discuss is that the Bible they believe to be authoritative in all matters, infallible and inerrant, is the same instrument they used to commit one of the greatest evils in America.

The unclaimed history of the SBC may lead to further denials, revisions, or acceptance with humility. Only time will tell. In the next chapter we will explore how the Bible was used in an inerrant and absolute fashion to lead even the very brightest of the 18th century astray.

PART II

The Southern Baptist Convention and its use of Biblical Absolutism in the Support of Human Bondage

Chapter 3

Slavery Divine Institution

Let a white man touch me, and he dies; I don't boast this, I don't say it around, or before the children, but I mean it. I've seen them whip my father and my old mother in the cotton-rows till the blood ran.

—As told to W.E.B. Du Bois

The scars that have been brought about by those who suffered under slavery are deep and lasting. It is not just a simple exercise of examining past events, viewing the role religious authorities and religious documents played in enslaving individuals and finding ways to explain such an atrocities, but also it is acknowledging that tremendous damage has been done that can perhaps never be repaired. This damage is compounded by the fact it was done under the guise of "the will of God."

"Let a white man touch me, and he dies," are words spoken by one who watched his parents treated as human chattel (property). The hatred that lives in some African Americans today can never be considered without merit and unjustified. If there is ever a crime having been once committed that has no statute of limitations, it is the crime of human slavery committed under the auspice of the authority of God.

Without the view of biblical absolutism to undergird and provide theological support for the institution of slavery in the 19th century, the institution would have collapsed under the weight of moral conscience and human decency. As evidence for that position one could point to the fact that it took civil government, not the church, to finally bring an end to slavery in America. However, because of the tenacious hold on the institution of slavery it took a war to pry the slaves from the slaveholders and to finally silence the religious leaders who argued loud and long in defense of human bondage.

Slavery in and of itself is condemned by all modern societies and is relegated to the category of institutionalized evil. What made it much worse was the use of the Bible to lend the authority of God for the protection and preservation of slavery as it was practiced in America. When the Bible, or any form of literature that is considered to be of God and thus authoritative, is used for the purpose of causing injury to one party for the benefit of another party, brings discredit upon both the literature itself and the those benefiting from such an arrangement. Therefore, in the context of the fact that the Christian Bible was the primary document to prove to all interested parties that in fact God not only endorsed slavery but also promoted its continued use, as demonstrated in both Old and New Testaments. The stories in Leon F. W. Litwack's _Trouble in Mind; Black Southerners in the Age on Jim Crow,_ told of the children and grandchildren of slaves who always carried a "common memory," that memory is they never forget the humiliation their loved ones suffered at the hands of their white owners, nor will they ever forgive such transgressions. These memories often live in oral tradition passed from generation to generation and become a part of the African American experience.

Dr. Matthew Johnson, a prominent African American scholar, once commented to a class he was teaching at the San Francisco Theological Seminary:

The reason why African American mothers are stern disciplinarians when it comes to their children, is because those mothers learned from their mothers that if you do not disciple your children they will fall into the hands of the overseer who will discipline that child sometimes to the point of death. (Johnson, 2012).

Biblical absolutism came easy to the Baptists in the South primarily because it was something they wanted to believe in, for the support of slavery, and because it worked well with their Calvinistic theological inclination (Philadelphia Declaration of Faith 1742). The idea behind absolutism is that everything in the Bible is absolutely true and is authoritative in all matters. The Bible is the sole authority that supersedes all other authorities having come from God Himself through inspired writers. The followers of God must practice the teachings of the Bible at all times and at all costs. It does not matter what a passage means, what is important is what the passage says. If the Bible teaches a practice, such as slavery, even though it may seem unjust it is only because man's idea of justness is flawed, for God would never teach one to sin. An example can be found in a syllogism suggested by Richard Fuller, former president of the SBC: "Whatever God sanctioned among the Hebrews, He sanctions for all men and at all times. God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews, therefore, God sanctions slavery for all men at all times" (Richard Fuller 1845, 52).

This syllogism was widely accepted in the era of American slavery because it affirmed a truth that those involved in slavery deeply wished to believe. If God ordained slavery, as taught in both Old and New Testaments, and explained by such a distinguished Southern Baptist scholar such as Rev. Dr. Richard Fuller, who is the man or woman to post an argument to the contrary. The abolitionist often had to make his or her argument _against_ the institution of slavery apart from the Bible; so potent were the arguments from the Bible in its favor.

Baptists in the South, like Baptists in the North in the 19th century subscribed to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The first article in the statement was the entitled " _Of Holy Scriptures_ " and is as follows:

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. (Philadelphia Confession 1742).

This confession of faith adhered to by Baptists throughout the North and South unequivocally states that the Bible is the only infallible and indisputable rule and all other contenders are insufficient. The Bible cannot be wrong, incorrect or in error because it is infallible. If, therefore, God allows slavery in the Old Testament and does not repudiate it in the New Testament then is must not be considered sin because it is supported in His infallible word.

In 1925, the SBC instituted their confession of faith entitled the Baptist Faith and Message. In regards to the Bible it states the following:

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter; that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and religious opinions should be tried.  
( _Baptist Faith and Message_ 1925).

This was revised in 1963, 1999 and again in 2000. The current view on the Bible is as follows:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ 2000).

The idea of the Bible being authoritative, infallible and without error still persists today and this method of understanding that led to such atrocities such as slavery will continue until some form of relativism is accepted.

To dissuade any idea that the justification of slavery, by an absolutist view of the Bible, is far in the past and the church is too wise to allow such a thing to occur need not look farther than South Africa. The Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) in South Africa used the same biblical arguments used in the Antebellum South to support and justify its support for apartheid (separateness). While this book does not address the DRC, it might do well to bring to light a common story told during the time of apartheid to illustrate the manner in which the DRC viewed the African:

The DRC minister enters his church one morning and finds a black man on his knees at the altar.

**Minister:** _Hey boy, what the hell are you doing in my church?_

**African man:** _Just, cleaning, baas_ _._

**Minister** **:** _Oh, ok kaffir – but I am warning you that I ever catch you praying in here I will beat seven kinds of sh*t out of you! (Duke 2008)._

Calvinism also had a major influence in the acceptance of slavery as a norm within the divine plan. Baptists in the North and South were either outright Calvinist or heavily influenced by Calvinist doctrine. Calvinism, a system of belief as instituted by the French theologian John Calvin, 1509-1564, held that there is nothing outside the will of God. In his view God ordains everything and nothing happens outside His perfect will. Therefore, if slavery exists then it exists within His perfect will. Examples of Calvin's ideas of divine providence can be found in his _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ , first published in 1536. This two thousand-page theology contains the following statements:

God regulates all things and nothing takes place without His deliberation. In times of adversity believers comfort themselves with the solace that they suffer nothing except by God's ordinance and command. Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him. Not one drop of rain falls without God's sure command. God assigns each person their condition in life. God always has the best reason for his plan: either to instruct his own people in patience, or to correct their wicked affections and tame their lust, or to subjugate them to self-denial, or to arouse them from sluggishness; again, to bring low the proud, to shatter the cunning of the impious and to overthrow their devices. Whatever happens in the universe is governed by God's incomprehensible plans.

( _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ 1536, 200-212).

These elements contained in the widely accepted doctrine of Calvinism grants a permissive attitude that even if slavery may appear evil, it cannot be so because it is God's plan working everything to a good purpose and divine end. At times, it is not possible to understand His plan for it is inscrutable, hidden. Because it is inscrutable then great faith is demonstrated in following His plan even if we cannot understand its purpose. Slavery seems unjust, evil and inconsistent with God's nature but it exists and is therefore ordained of God in a mysterious way that is hidden. God would not let anything in His universe left to chance; every wind that blows and drop of rain that falls does by His decree. This type of reasoning makes it easier and salves the conscience knowing that the slaveholder is doing his or her part for the greater kingdom. The freeman is such by the decree of God and the slave is a slave because God so elected him/her to be so. The same goes for the rich or the poor, all have been elected to their station in life and as long as one does not _forget their place_ all will be well. In Calvinism even the cruel slaveholder or overseer could find justification in their cruelty for:

God knows how to use evil instruments...and I grant more: thieves and murderers and other evil doers are the instruments of divine providence, and the Lord Himself uses these to carry out the judgments that he has determined with himself. ( _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ , 217).

Yet, oddly enough, even though Calvinism undergirded the rational for those who sought to endorse slavery, Calvin himself rejected slavery, a fact that is never mentioned in pro slavery arguments. In his commentary of Jeremiah and Lamentations, Part IV page 283, he writes:

Our servitude has been abolished, that is, that miserable condition when one had no right of his own but when the master had power of life over death; that custom has ceased and the abolition cannot be blamed. Some superstition might have been at the beginning; and I certainly think that the commencement of the change arose from superstition. It is, however, it is by no means to be wished that there should be slaves among us, as there were formally among all nations, an as there are now among barbarians. (Calvin's Bible Commentary 1847, 283).

Currently there is a theological shift in the SBC back to Calvinism. In 2007 and in 2008, the SBC held two conferences to address the growing number of SBC churches that are adopting Calvinism. The pastor of First Baptist Church in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, Jeff Noblit pointed to what he believes are seven reasons Southern Baptists should rejoice in the rise of Calvinism in the SBC, for he sees the rise of Calvinism as an instrument the Lord could use to bring revival and reformation to our churches because "our churches need to bring Him the glory He deserves," (Noblit, SBC Life 2010) He suggested that the rise of Calvinism would help in:

Overcoming "inerrancy idolatry" (holding to the inerrancy of God's Word without practicing its sufficiency) and reclaiming the sufficiency of Scripture  
Producing "better" church splits (churches born out of a struggle for biblical integrity) Exposing and removing covert liberalism; Restoring true evangelism

Energizing and mobilizing Christian youth; Returning churches to biblical models of ministry; and increasing the focus on glorifying God. (Noblit, SBC Life 2010).

The conference in 2008 was called the "John 3:16 Conference" and was sponsored by Jerry Vines Ministries, New Orleans (Southern) Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern (Southern) Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Luther Rice Seminary and Midwestern (Southern) Baptist Theological Seminary. It was held at the First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia with about one thousand in attendance. In the first session Ed Stetzer presented a paper entitled "Calvinism, Evangelism, and the SBC Leadership." In this paper Stetzer confirmed the number of Calvinists in the SBC is growing and now approximately ten percent of SBC leaders now consider themselves to be five point Calvinists, in addition thirty percent of recent seminary graduates identify themselves as such (Calvin, Southern Baptist Perspective 2010).

In addition to biblical absolutism and Calvinism, a third component that led to the great error of southern churches and Baptists in the South was the belief in the doctrine of inerrancy. If there is a single unifying doctrine among SBC churches and members it is the doctrine of inerrancy. This is the doctrine that states there are no errors in the Bible. In SBC life, if you cannot make that statement you are to be considered not only a heretic but the very one the church is to be on guard against. Never mind that nowhere does the Bible itself claim inerrancy it nevertheless remains the most important teaching of SBC churches.

They are many errors in the Bible, in fact too many to list. In the _Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics_ , Norm Geisler makes notice of over two hundred thousand scriptural variants. This number is very conservative according to modern scholarship. The point being made is that if there is one error, no matter how small and insignificant that error may be, the claim for biblical inerrancy cannot be supported. Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in his book _Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,_ writes:

Not only do we not have the originals (autographs), we do not have the first copies of the originals. We do not even have the copies of the copies of the originals, or the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later—much later. In most instances, they are copies made many _centuries_ later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. These copies differ from one another in so many places that we do not even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easier to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts that there are words in our New Testament. (Ehrman 2005, 10).

Because these facts are undeniable, many within the SBC amend their statement on inerrancy with the words "I believe the Bible to be without error in their original autographs." This is an incredible statement to make given the fact no one has ever seen any autograph of any book of the Bible to make such a distinction as to its veracity. This oft repeated phrase is the standard answer given by those in an interview for the office of pastor of a SBC church. The question "Do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God," and the expected answer is, "I believe the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant in its original autographs." This answer is expected and often satisfies the requirement of the pulpit committee. It is safe to pledge allegiance to something that in all probability does not exist.

The official position remains that the:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ).

When contradictions, and errors are pointed out it is a simple matter of taking refuge in the concept that only the original autographs are inerrant. However, the idea that the original autographs of the entire Bible is totally free from any error grammatically, theologically, or in any error of science cannot be sustained because they do not exist to be tested. Therefore, to affirm the practice of such evil as slavery or the persecution of _any_ group based upon the authority of a document that has never been seen is absurd. Furthermore, to make a claim of inerrancy for documents that no one has seen in over two thousand years, and when those who have seen those documents never make such claim, undermines the authority of those who make the claim of inerrancy today. It is common for evangelicals to dismiss the claims of Mormons and the golden plates of Joseph Smith because they cannot be produced to validate claims of authority, yet Southern Baptists make similar claims by asserting a quality to a series of document that do not exist in any forms other than copies of copies. In other words, no one can claim the original autographs of the Bible are inerrant when no one has them to validate such claims.

These three positions, biblical absolutism, Calvinism and inerrancy make fertile soil for the acceptance of the institutionalized evil of slavery. These same three arguments can be made afresh and have been so done in the SBC as it relates to the relegation of women to a state of inferiority and the current persecution of homosexuals. In the mid-19th century, Baptists in the South were affirmed in their error by the culture they were immersed in. They had everything they needed to blind them to a grave, unforgivable error. An unforgivable error because it extends far beyond what any apology may suffice. C.G. Jung (1875-1962) a Swiss psychiatrist and the founder of analytical psychology, in his book _The Undiscovered Self_ writes:

All mass movements, as one might expect, slip with great ease down an inclined plane represented by large numbers. Where the many are there is security; what the many believe must of course be true; what the many want must be worth striving for, and necessary, and therefore good. (Jung 1956, 59).

The abolitionist voice is the south was powerless against the vast weight of Scripture, figures of authority and human desire. Even Abraham Lincoln was swept up in the overpowering cultural acceptance of slavery. Speaking to a crowd before he begins the fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas he says:

While I was at the hotel today an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. (Abraham Lincoln, 1858).

Lincoln embodied the spirit of the North on the views of slavery. The African was considered an inferior race, a race distinct from that of the superior white race and many of the same fears of the South also were held by those in the North.

Chapter 4

Old Testament Arguments in the Defense of Human Bondage

It is the positive duty of slaves to reverence their masters, to be obedient, industrious, faithful to him, and be careful of his interests; and without being so, they can neither be the faithful servants of God, nor be held as regular members of the Christian church.

—Rev. Richard Furman, President South Carolina Baptist Sate Convention

Richard Furman was a champion among Baptists in the South for his articulation of a biblical defense of slavery. Furman is remembered among the SBC as a "clergyman, patriot, educator, and pioneer denominational statesman. More than any other man, he created the basic organizational concepts that are unique in Southern Baptist denominational life" (Richard Furman, Reformed Reader, 1998). Yet little is mentioned among Southern Baptists that while he was known as a zealous, evangelical Calvinist he was also known as a vocal proponent of slavery.

Furman had no difficulty advancing these views because he claimed biblical authority to support each statement he made on slavery and he had a willing audience. It might be noticed these same beliefs were widely held and were not exclusive to Furman. It would be far more difficult to find influential Southern Baptist leaders who _did not_ advocate slavery in the mid-19th century in the South. In addition, underlying the theme of the biblical arguments for slavery also lie a distinct and clear understanding that the white "race" was superior to the African "race." This fact is often overlooked but it was so widely held that some adopted a view of polygenesis (Smith 1972, 157).

Polygenesis suggested a third race of people, not the children of Adam and not the cattle of the field but somewhere in between. In other words, one level above the cattle of the field and one level below the children of Adam existed the children of Ham, the "hewers of wood and the drawers of water" (Josh. 9:23). This is why the idea of racial amalgamation (combining of the two different races) was a feared social taboo. It was not so much the idea of miscegenation (sexual relations between races) but the fact that the blood of another race might possibly pollute the blood of the children of Adam.

A most salient point to understand when viewing the arguments from the Bible is that none of these arguments would ever have been presented were it not for the fact that the institution of slavery was a system made legal and supported by the Government of the United States and even provided for in its Constitution (Article I, Section 2; Section 9, Clause 1; Article IV, Section 2; Article V). It was not until Congress voted to pass the thirteenth amendment on January 31, 1865 that slavery no longer was protected by the Constitution of the United States. Not a single argument from the Bible would had ever occurred if it were not desired by civil government and had the full support of civil government to make such claims. By way of example, in the 21st century America there are no theologians, preachers, or professors calling for the return of human bondage even though the same arguments still exist in the same Bible. The 19th century the religious proponents who made their arguments from the Bible were apparently used by the authorities of the state to give validation to acts of human cruelty.

The primary argument for the enslavement of the African comes from Genesis 9:20-27:

Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, 'Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.' He also said, 'Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.

(Gen. 9:20-27).

This is perhaps the most important passage in the Bible in regards to slavery. This passage was used to justify the enslavement of over twelve million Africans between the 16th and the 19th century (Segal 1995, 4).

The argument made from the Genesis account is as follows: that righteous Noah (Gen. 6:9; Heb. 11:7) became drunk and passed out naked. Ham, Noah's youngest son saw the nakedness of his father and went and told his two brothers. Because Ham looked upon the nakedness of his father, Noah cursed him, and all his descendants to be the lowest of slaves to his other bothers. Since all humankind came from these three sons it was believed that Japhet was the father of the Caucasian race; Shem the father of the Mongolic race: and Ham the father of the Negroid race. Ham's name וְחָ֣ם was thought to mean "burnt," and thus "black." It is the understanding that the crime of Ham was so heinous that the curse of Noah is what caused his skin to turn black. Upon this interpretation without any other explanation all blacks are known to be the children of Ham and are thus slaves in perpetuity according to the design and plan of God. Theodore Weld's oft-repeated phrase "This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ (a handbook you would carry on your person) of slaveholders, and they never venture abroad without it," is well supported by even a cursory survey of literature on this matter. Stephen Haynes writes, "During the heyday of slavery in America a racial understanding of Genesis nine through eleven was so much a part of cultural common sense that defensive arguments were no longer required (Haynes 2002, 265). In other words the institution of slavery was based on a matter of ancestry.

Although the argument for the justification of slavery found its roots in the malediction of Noah, there remains the matter of what does this passage mean? There is some debate about the details but no disagreement as to the "curse." When the question arises of whether the punishment fits the crime the crime has to be elevated to give reason to justify the punishment. First, there is the castration story. One explanation claims that, "Ham entered the tent and mischievously looped a stout cord about his father's genitals, drew it tight, and unmanned him" (Haynes 2002, 400). This story seemed to gain popularity, perhaps, because men have considered this a reprehensible crime of the highest order demanding the worst curse possible (slavery) on its perpetrator. Other stories suggest Ham sexually assaulted Noah or his wife. Again, it is important to come up with an explanation that is so horrid it gives reason for such a lasting curse. The reason for these outlandish stories is it is simple to see that this passage in Genesis cannot reasonably, or in any other way, be used as a defense for human slavery. The old adage "people believe to be true what they wish to be true" is well demonstrated in this case.

As a minimum, it can be said to those who accept this story of Noah and his sons to be an accurate historical event, it must be agreed that it is unclear what occurred or why. Certainly, there cannot be found any justification for the institution of slavery based on this story. What can be said for certain is that Noah drank too much wine, was discovered by one of his children, and upon having his lapse of morals exposed, in a drunken rage, he cursed one of his children. On the surface, the obvious guilty party is not Ham, but Noah. There is no mention of Ham doing anything but seeing something Noah wished to conceal. When Ham mentioned what he saw to his brothers and his brothers came to where Noah lay, he was still naked for the two brothers took a blanket and walked backwards to cover him.

There is no mention of God in the entire passage. It is highly probable that Noah was speaking outside the authority of God. Proslavery advocates state that Noah spoke through the Spirit of God and with His authority he cursed Ham for all generations. However, there is no evidence Noah spoke with the voice of God and to do so implicates the Christian God with all the sorrow of human bondage. To believe Noah cursed Ham with the authority of God allowed the slaveholder to look into the eyes of his African slave and say "you are a slave because you were born of the linage of Ham and the sooner you accept God's ordained truth in this matter the easier it will be for you." It is not reasonable to assume everything Noah hated or opposed, God also hated and opposed. If Noah despised Ham, for whatever reason, it was under his own jurisdiction as an individual, not as the mouthpiece of God. These arguments meant little to those who wanted to own slaves for they had the great Southern preachers of the South lending their respectability and the authority of the Bible in their defense.

The more obvious answer to this linking the story of Noah and his sons to the practice of slavery is the question the historicity of Noah as a literal person. To accept this story as literal it has to be believed that Noah built an Ark where all the animals entered in two by two and therein survived a great flood, of which there is no geological record of it ever occurring. However, after surviving the flood the animals were released in the area of Mount Ararat where they wandered and scattered throughout the earth. The surviving families then were the sole parents of the earth's population. The problem with taking this story literally is it cannot be substantiated by the fossil or genetic record. It is difficult to believe the seven billion people today derived from three child-producing couples four thousand years ago and to believe such must be done as a matter of faith, belief without evidence. Not only must this be believed without evidence but it must be believed contrary to a great deal of evidence indicating a worldwide deluge never occurred. The point is that the whole institution of slavery was built on a Jewish Midrash. All the terrible human suffering of slavery because of an incredible story of those sole survivors of the deluge which stretches the incredulity of the simplest mind to accept as literal history. Even as children we wondered how all the animals in the world fit into a single ark, even if it was a big one. We were right to be suspicious.

The arguments of Baptists in the North were very weak in regards to this passage in part because the Northern Baptists, like their Southern counterparts longed for justification for believing the African somehow were responsible for his or her condition by the nature of their birth. Cursed of God, born to slavery. Let it not be forgotten that while the Baptists in the North did have a greater voice in calling for emancipation, it was always with the idea of colonization (return to Africa). They wanted to Africans to be free, but free somewhere else.

The treatment of Genesis, chapters nine through eleven is a clear example of what can be read into a passage instead of what can be understood from a passage. While there should never been a single voice in support of this institutionalized evil called slavery, Baptist or otherwise, there were nevertheless many. The proslavery voices were from the most influential clergymen of their time. It seems that on such an evil, God would have spoken clearly had He wished to sanction it, not hide it in strange and obscure texts of which it is impossible to determine meaning with any degree of certitude. For example, a passage that might say, "I (God) state that I hate Ham for reasons that are my own, I curse him and I shall cause his skin to be a color different than others, and he shall be a slave to the white race." Of course, neither such a statement, nor anything like it can be found anywhere in the Bible. To go further, if the African nation were the dominate power they in turn could have claimed Genesis chapters nine through eleven to say Ham did not represent the African people but the Caucasian people and thus make the same claim for enslaving whites.

To treat the Bible thus and to continue to call it inspired is to lend credence to the argument that the people of faith are a deluded people who believe a book they call good is in fact a book of oppression and is unparalleled in the history of literature as to the amount of human suffering that has been the result of its use. A book, in and of itself, has no moral qualities of its own but takes on the morality of those who are the interpreters. It can be safely assumed that not just the Bible, but also all books can be used for good or evil. Perhaps the French philosopher Voltaire's observation: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities," is not too far from the truth when considered that a book viewed to be divine instruction from God contains the most brutal atrocities imaginable and seems to lend license to commit such acts. This type of use (abuse) of the Bible has invoked incredulity and condemnation from those such as the public intellectual Richard Dawkins who wrote in his book _The God Delusion_ :

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Dawkins 2006, 51).

This view is gaining growing acceptance evidenced by the popularity of the books by Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennent and others because the blind reasoning of those who believe the Bible to be inerrant and thus give oblique approval to all the atrocities that have been committed under the auspices of divine authority. An example often told with a certain degree of pride of the power of God over the enemies of the faith is found in the book of Exodus. This is the story where Moses comes face to face with Pharaoh and this confrontation results in bloodshed:

Moses said, 'Thus says the Lord: About midnight I will go out through Egypt. Every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the firstborn of the female slave who is behind the hand mill, and all the firstborn of the livestock. Then there will be a loud cry throughout the whole land of Egypt, such as has never been nor will ever be again. But not a dog shall growl at any of the Israelites not at people, not at animals so that you may know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel. Then all these officials of yours shall come down to me, and bow low to me, saying, "Leave us, you and all the people who follow you." After that I will leave.' And in hot anger he left Pharaoh. (Ex. 11:4-8).

This is a wonderful story biblical literalists love to tell because it is one of God punishing all those who dare challenge Him and it is a story of how God will protect His chosen ones from harm. However, hidden in this same story is a story of a slave. A woman who is a slave is the lowest of all slaves; even her body is not her own but belongs to her master and his sons. This woman, who has no voice in the matters in the reign of Pharaoh or the persecution of the Israelites, will have her first born die. Not the second, or third born, but the first born of all the female slaves would die by the command of God. To choose a literal interpretation of this verse, as is done with the verses that speak of slavery, is to justify the deaths of the children who are the least protected and most vulnerable class of people. To refer back to Voltaire's observation: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities," reveals the first, and often fatal step of an inerrant approach to any book of the Bible.

The SBC makes no distinction between inspiration and inerrancy. In regards to the story of the curse of Ham and the slaying of the first born of the female slaves, these must be accepted as a matter of faith because God is the author of the Bible and therefore there can be no errors, especially in area of morality. If it appears God has authorized an immoral act then it is _our understanding_ of the act that is flawed, not the biblical record of the act. If the first born of the female slaves were killed it therefore must mean they were somehow complicit in the crime against God as Pharaoh himself.

Other biblical narratives are more difficult to explain. The story of the slaying of the Canaanites is one where those who hold the view that the Bible is absolutely true, and is free from any error and is the perfect rule of conduct, gives great consternation. Extensive writing has been published with all sorts of literary contortions seeking to find some way to harmonize the God of love with the genocide (ethnic cleansing) of the Canaanites. In Deuteronomy 20:16-18 we read the following:

When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.  Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord   
your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites just as the Lord   
your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God. (Deut. 20:16-18).

In this passage the people of the land who are about to be invaded by the people of God are given a choice, slavery or death. If they choose to fight, all the men will be killed, and the women and children they can take as plunder and submit them to a lifetime of slavery. Those who occupy the towns that God has given the Israelites, as an inheritance, all must be killed including women and children, a complete and total genocide.

In this single passage we have divine authority to kill and enslave the innocent. The authority comes directly from God and thus must be morally correct and cannot be questioned or challenged. Were this the only incident of mass murder and human bondage it would be enough to agree with the appraisal of Richard Dawkins that the "God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser..." In addition, the acts of killing children and forced slavery are found throughout the history of Israel in the Old Testament:

  * Thus says the Lord of hosts, "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (I Sam. 15:2-3).

  * Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. Moses said to them, 'Have you allowed all the women to live? These women here, on Balaam's advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Num. 31:16-18).

  * So when Sihon came out against us, he and all his people for battle at Jahaz, the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we struck him down, along with his offspring and all his people. At that time we captured all his towns, and in each town we utterly destroyed men, women, and children. We left not a single survivor. (Deut. 2:34).

  * Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys. (Josh. 6:21).

The above verses illustrate that the destruction on innocents was no isolated occasion, and even the Psalmist David writes "The righteous will rejoice when they see vengeance done; they will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked," (Ps. 58:10). The theme of one people conquering and enslaving another is common in the Old Testament and that is why it is such a useful tool for making ones argument in the defense of slavery, but only if one holds to a literal/absolutist view of the Bible in the first place. It is easy to see even the most ardent Southern Baptist only calls for inerrancy, and absolutist interpretation only when it serves his or her needs.

It is frightening to consider what conclusions can be derived from such stories but also the sense of allegiance literalists commit to these stories. In the mid-19th century, narratives such as the story of the destruction of the Canaanites greatly encouraged the slaveholders because they held to the theory that the Africans were the direct descendants of the Canaanites and thus _deserved_ to always remain inferior and were destined to be slaves (Gen. 9:22). The African American poet Maya Angelou sadly makes the observation that "God Himself hated us and ordained us to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, forever and ever, world without end" (Angelou 1969, 132). Senator James Henry Hammond of South Carolina, also one of the state's largest slaveholders in 1866, said: "I believe that God created negroes for no other purpose than to be 'the hewers of wood and drawers of water'- that is to be the slaves of the white race" (Smith 1972, 148).

The Southern Baptist argument claimed there are no innocents in the family tree of Ham, all share in the same guilt of their original parent, Ham. Just as God killed the first born of the female slaves in Egypt, and God had the Israelites kill all the children of the Canaanites it is acceptable and never to be considered immoral. It is divine work and was to fulfill His purpose of which is often undisclosed to those who trust in Him. This way of thinking makes an unanswerable argument against the defense of slavery by its proponents, using the Bible as an authority. They used the Bible to trump human reason and human compassion.

Another passage used in the support of slavery was Leviticus 25:44-46. It is considered to be one of the most convincing passages in the Old Testament, which every slave owner knew it by heart. This passage on slavery was a part of the Law given by God and therefore was considered to be sacrosanct and indisputable. To those who admit this passage does sanction slavery, make the claim the New Testament sets it aside as part of the fulfilling of the Law so it no longer is in effect. However, little is gained with that argument due to the fact neither Jesus, or the apostles, ever repudiate the institution of slavery. Also, it is a fact that the curse of Ham and the institution of slavery predates the Law and thus is still in effect, as the Baptist argument was presented. The passage in question is as follows:

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness." (Lev. 25:44-46).

This describes slavery in America. God permits slavery, and it is permissible to make slaves of men and women who are unfortunate to have been born the descendants of Ham. These slaves will be property and as such they, and their children, may be passed down from generation to generation. No provision is called for their release, and no provision is called for compassionate care. This passage is the peg all slavers hung their hat on. To argue against slavery is to dispute the clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures. This is why the arguments of the Southern Baptists were so readily received, because while it may seem morally wrong on the surface it must be a misunderstanding on the part of the conscience of the slave master because it is plain and clear, slavery is acceptable to God so it must be acceptable to the children of God.

The acceptance of slavery was nearly a forgone conclusion as it was nearly universally approved by respected religious leaders, culturally embraced, and vital to the Southern economy. To challenge the institution of slavery as being immoral would not only be considered "unbiblical," but also traitorous to the Southern way of life. The South became entrenched in the biblical justifications of slavery that to rescind these arguments would have been near impossible. In addition, the economy of the South was built upon the continued practice of slavery. This context may provide the reason why slavery was accepted by society but it does excuse the fact that it should have been recognized as the evil that it was.

The African must learn to accept his or her place as children of Ham and the slave master must assume the role of the paternal overseer of the slave. "At the very least, maintained Rev. James Smylie, Scripture proved that God gave a written permit to the Hebrew, then the best people in the world, to buy, hold and bequeath men and women to perpetual servitude" (Smith 1972, 132).

Even the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) assume slavery: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor" (Ex. 20:17). Rabbi M.J. Raphall in his tract _The Bible View of Slavery_ writes in his defense of slavery citing the Ten Commandments:

The Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8) that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?  
(Raphall 1861).

To further underscore the argument for slavery from Old Testament sources the proslavery preachers pointed out that priests owned slaves as recorded in the Old Testament. This is undeniable as it is found in Leviticus 22:10-11and Numbers 31:25. The reasoning was if it was acceptable for the priests of God to own slaves then human bondage cannot be sin. It was common for influential pastors to also be slave owners and this fact has not gone unnoticed in that the loudest proponents for slavery were clergymen who were also slave owners. In fact, nearly every influential voice within the Baptists of the South were clergymen who were slaveholders. One of the reasons for this is that anyone who had the financial means, owned slaves because it was the _zeitgeist_ of the era, approved by God, and a cultural symbol of status. To have the means to own a slave and not have one might mark one as having abolitionist sympathies.

It can be safely said, and quite often was said in colonial America, if you wished to own a human as property and your conscience troubled you over the idea, go to the Bible. In the Bible you will find the consolation you seek. Not only is slavery ordained by God, some say even commanded by God, but the very priests of God themselves owned slaves. The Bible was the "go to " book for the justification of slavery and not a single page, phrase, or word on slavery has been abrogated, rescinded or retracted. Slavery is still practiced in parts of the modern world and where it is there is no doubt there will be copies of the Bible from which clergy are expounding the righteousness of human bondage.

The type of interpretation that is stilled cherished by Southern Baptists (inerrancy, literalism, absolutism) has given rise, not only to slavery but to also other aberrations that are just as egregious and yet use the very same absolutist and inerrant hermeneutic. An example is the Phineas Priesthood. The Phineas Priesthood is a Christian white supremacist movement based on the same hermeneutical principles that was used by the Baptists in the South to justify slavery. The Phineas Priesthood shares the current view of the Southern Baptist that the Bible is inerrant and is "...a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy." ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ). They even share the same fear of miscegenation (the mixing of different races through marriage or procreation) and amalgamation (combining two races into one). The Phineas Priesthood is based on a story found in Numbers 25:1-19, a story about divinely sanctioned violence in the name of ethnic purity (Beal 2011, 156).

Thus the argument of the white supremacist Phineas Priesthood is based upon the same authority as the postulated by the proslavery Baptists in the 19th century. Richard Kelly Hoskins wrote _Vigilantes of Christendom_ , which embraces the biblical story of Phineas and has convinced thousands of followers that the priesthood continues into the modern era. Timothy Beal writing about the Phineas Priesthood states:

Inspired by the story in Numbers 25:1-19 white supremacist Richard Kelly Hoskins wrote _Vigilantes of Christendom:_ _The story of the Phineas Priesthood_ , which presents a postbiblical lineage of "Phineas Priests" who have been willing to carry out similar acts of violent racial and moral purification, and which call forth a new generation of white Christian zealots to similar action. In the years since its publication (1990) Hoskins book has gained wide circulation among white supremacists die-hards and potential recruits in and out of prison. Today, many notorious groups lay claim to this dubious biblical heritage, declaring themselves Phineas Priests. Indeed, within these groups the idea of the Phineas Priesthood has become a powerful means of ordaining acts of racist terror as part of a larger, divinely sanctioned racial holy war. (Beal 2011, 157).

It seems what evil seeks is permission, and permission is easily available upon every page of the Bible if one wishes to find it. There can be little doubt there is no evil committed that cannot find its justification from the Bible when a flawed hermeneutic is in use. The idea that the good of the Bible justifies the evil derived from the Bible, as some form of compensation is a false idea, for evil by its very nature has no moral justification.

The African Americans today still carry the pain of their ancestors, evidenced by their music, art, written and oral histories. The good in the Bible may or may not be able to erase the evil committed under the terror of slavery. It is a myth that the same Bible that gave rise to slavery also brought slavery tumbling down. Slavery was acquitted by a war. The Southern Baptist slavers fought shoulder to shoulder with the Confederates until the last shot was fired and both the Southern Baptist doctrine of slavery and the Confederacy came to an end. When law throughout the United States had abolished slavery, the Baptists of the South began to see the error of their ways, and yet to this day have never apologized for the role they played in ensuring that Africans remained in servitude to their white masters. It took a war between the States and the loss of over 900,000 lives until the Southern Baptist finally ended their religious rhetoric for the support of slavery.

One other example from modernity is the recent use of biblical absolutism for the purpose of racial segregation in South Africa under Apartheid that was championed by the previously mentioned Dutch Reformed Church. This is important to remember because when all the elements come together, social acceptance ( _zeitgeist_ ), legality and desire, the Bible once again is used to extreme advantage over and against other people. The following ideas advanced by the Dutch Reformed Church are as follows:

God 'deliberately divided people into different races' – the whites being superior to blacks. The Bible says 'There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians you are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). They said that this means people are only spiritually equal, not physically equal.

That South Africa's Apartheid laws were God's will and races should be kept apart. Whites should have better opportunities as they heed God's 'favour'.

Mixed marriages and relationships are discouraged so races remained 'pure'.

God is the 'Great Divider'. Genesis 1 supports this, in that, God divides everything into separate categories - white is divided from black and meant to be separate.

(Dutch Reformed Church, A Study in Prejudice and Discrimination, 2007).

The fact that the Dutch Reformed church was the authoritative voice of God for apartheid has been a great embarrassment for their organization. Because of their role in apartheid, they were expelled from the World Council of Churches in the early 1980s, and yet they did not acknowledge apartheid was a "sin" until 1992. And it was not until 1997, that the Rev. Freek Swanepoel, the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk, of the Dutch Reformed Church, said: "We confess that great wrongs have been done." (Braid 1997). Yet again, it was the best minds, using the same book (the Bible) using the same authoritative absolutist hermeneutic to sanctify apartheid that was used to justify slavery in America. Not good company to be in.

Bart Ehrman in his book _Jesus Interrupted_ believes the current and prevailing method of viewing the Bible might be improved by considering the historical-critical method as opposed to the devotional method. By doing so it will build in safeguards to protect against using the Bible in extremism. By devotional Ehrman means:

What does the Bible tell us about God, Christ and the Church? What is my relation to the world? What does it tell me about what to believe, how to act? What of my social responsibilities? How can the Bible help make us closer to God and how does it help us to live? (Ehrman 2010, 4).

The problem with this devotional approach is that it is looking for firm answers in a book that raises more questions than provides answers, and this is unacceptable to Southern Baptist literalism. The Bible itself is a collection of many sources over a period of thousands of years and what clarity there might have been has been long lost in antiquity and this fact alone should preclude any idea of literalism and resulting absolutism and fundamentalism. The reason it cannot be accepted literally are myriad, some of them previously discussed in this book. To consider the Bible inerrant and absolute requires "authorities" to determine meaning. These authorities will determine what the Bible says on _any_ subject at _any_ time in history and applies it to all cultures. It is these same authorities that led the Southern Baptist churches into accepting and promoting slavery and it is these same authorities that continue to lead the contemporary church into error. Every gross error the church has ever been involved in has been the result of the accepted authoritative figures interpreting the Bible to permit, condemn, or forbid an action. What appears to be evil, slavery and apartheid, were permitted because a priest, preacher, rabbi or other spokesperson for God had so declared it to be acceptable, if not required.

Ehrman's critical/historical approach to interpretation helps bring distance and objectivity to the Bible that is greatly needed to dissolve an unhealthy relationship with the inerrant/literal/absolute hermeneutic that has been the root of much suffering committed in the name of God. The historical-critical method asks questions such as:

What did the biblical writings mean in their original historical context? Who were the actual authors of the Bible? When did these authors live? What were the circumstances under which they wrote? What issues were they trying to address in their own day? How were they affected by the cultural and historical assumptions of their time? What sources did these authors use? When were these sources produced? Is it possible that what the books originally meant in their original context is not what they are taken to mean today? (Ehrman 2010, 4-5).

As long as the Bible is to be considered authoritative and inerrant, then there must be trusted authorities properly selected and trained at Southern Baptist seminaries that are authorized to interpret the Bible. This approach to the Bible has led many Southern Baptists to say in regards to a difficult passage, "I do not know what it means, but I know it is true."

The SBC with its involvement with the Evangelical Theological Society (Paul House, society president, was a former professor at Southwestern Theological Seminary; Thomas R. Schreiner, society vice president, is the James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Greg R. Allison-Society, secretary, is Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Bruce Ware, Member at Large, is Professor of Christian Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) adopted the _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ on Nov. 16, 2006, to further affirm the integrity of scriptural inerrancy (Baptist Press News, 2006). A report by the Presidential Theological Study Committee (The Theological Study Committee was appointed by SBC President H. Edwin Young in 1992) was presented and adopted by the SBC in 1994 affirming the SBCs' commitment to the _Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy_. _The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy_ makes the following statements on biblical inerrancy:

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church. (Chicago Statement of Faith, 1978).

In light of modern research and the many manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments revealing thousands of errors, contradictions, additions and subtractions from the texts it is incredulous to make the claims presented in the _Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy_. If these claims are to be believed by the SBC, it becomes impossible to make any defense against human bondage from the Old Testament. The idea in article five, holding that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures is progressive and now we all know better regarding things such as slavery is difficult to accept on the grounds that it cannot be believed that God allowed slavery to exist from Ham to the close of the Civil War because of the nature of progressive revelation. Also, this statement on inerrancy denies that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings. If, in fact, revelation ended at the completion of the last book written then that establishes the fact God has said all He is going to say on all matters of faith. All revelation has ceased; implying all current understanding of what constitutes sin is cast in stone and is not up for review. This has terrible implications for the treatment of homosexuals and women, as these two groups are the current targets of the SBC.

To the Baptists in the South, the Bible established the right of the institution of slavery, and there can never be any new revelation that would ever change that fact. It can be said today that these same scriptures state clearly that women cannot be a pastor, must always be subordinate to men in the home, society and in the church, and that homosexuality is a sin and those who practice it must live in guilt and shame and this cannot be over ruled by any future revelation, progressive or otherwise. This is why it is important to the current flock of SBC authorities that they have not only a closed canon but also a closed revelation. Progressive revelation has ended lest it be revealed in the future that their current contribution to evil be, in fact, wrong. Like those Baptists in the South who were absolutely convinced human bondage was authorized by God, there remains those today who are likewise convinced it is acceptable to persecute categories of individuals based on gender, race, and sexual orientation while maintaining all revelation ended when the last book of the New Testament was written. This generation of SBC leadership wishes to ensure they will not suffer, as their forefathers did, for using the Bible to evil ends. They must insist the Bible is now a closed book and no future revelations or interpretation can occur.

One would hope there would be progression in the SBC in the way they view the Bible as a whole but as seen, every year they seem to become further entrenched in the idea the Bible is absolutely without error and is the perfect treasure to guide one's life. Inevitably, the errors made in the past by the holders of inerrancy will reoccur in the future using the same Bible to the same terrible end. To prevent such occurrence one is faced with the choice of giving up inerrancy or giving up the Bible altogether.

All literalism is selective. The glaring flaw of literalism is that it is never consistent. This is why inerrancy and absolutism will always thrive. The ones who demand biblical literalism, inerrancy and absolutism are the ones that have the most to gain from such beliefs. Religious authoritative individuals must have inerrancy to be able to invoke the authority of God to their purpose. The Baptist proponents of slavery never said it was them saying slavery was an acceptable practice, they always pointed out it was God saying it was an acceptable practice. This is why in the last article in the _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ it says, "we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected _without grave consequences_ (italics mine) both to the individual and to the Church. This is a direct threat issued by the composers of this statement on inerrancy. This has been a familiar theme throughout the history of the Church, "believe or else," and the _or else_ has often brought terrible consequences.

To hold of the view that the Bible is inerrant has put the SBC at odds with the very society to which they are responsible to minster to all people. That the SBC stands in opposition to groups that fall out of favor with the church, but are accepted by society as a whole, creates a view of the SBC as an anachronism.

Chapter 5

New Testament Arguments in the Defense of Human Bondage

Be well assured that slavery is a work of the flesh, assisted by the devil; a mystery of iniquity that works like witchcraft to darken your understanding and harden your hearts against conviction.

—James O'Kelly, 1785

The New Testament is a book of enlightenment where the old laws and ways are overturned, and ushered in their place is an age of grace, love, and uniting humankind with God and with one another. The terrible wars, genocide, patricide, child abuse, executing Sabbath breakers, burning witches, and all the like are in the past having been forever locked up in the cellar of history for the sake of God's progressive revelation. Therefore, in the New Testament there will surely be an able defense against slavery. However, as Dr. Wayland puts it "All that can justly be said, seems to me, to be this, the New Testament contains no precept prohibitory of slavery. This must, I think, be granted; but this is all" (Wayland 1847, 89). There is no rescue from slavery in the New Testament, and in fact there is more fuel to add to the fire.

The defense given from the New Testament was just as plentiful as that from the Old Testament. As long as one holds an inerrant hermeneutic there can be no defense against the institution of slavery that can be established through use of the New Testament. All arguments from the Bible supporting slavery can be substantiated using inerrancy and absolutism in both Old _and_ New Testaments. Inerrancy allows interpretation by expediency whereas the historical-critical method places the Bible back where it belongs, in the category of an incredible work of human literature that was the product of its time and culture. This is the only category it can find validity because the Bible is trumped by simple human decency. Simple human decency leads to a belief that slavery and the persecution of any people for any reason in the name of God is a crime under any definition.

The golden rule of Matthew 7:12 "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets" offers a possible rebuttal to the proslavery advocates but this was simply brushed off with the statement that they _do_ practice this rule and they _do_ treat their slaves in such manner they themselves would like to be treated if they themselves were slaves (Smith 1972, 134). In their manner of thinking they have met the standard of the Golden Rule. It cannot even be ruled out that this is exactly what Jesus had in mind with the golden rule in regards to master and slave. At the least it demands humane treatment for the slave. It might be an impossible interpretation to be considered by today's standards, but to the 19th century slaveholder, it made perfect sense. There was no other way to consider that the Golden Rule could be interpreted—any other way than in the support of slavery and does not conflict with earlier clear teaching of God on the matter of slavery.

Jesus was silent on the issue of slavery. He used the slave motif often in His parables and He never once chastised a single slaveholder. Although most advocates of slavery preferred not to bring in the teachings of Jesus into the debate, preferring rather the epistles of Paul for their defense of the institution. They, nevertheless, were quick to point out that Jesus never advocated the ending of the institution of slavery. By inference, those who supported slavery from the Bible stated that on such an important issue of human bondage Jesus surely would have ended the institution if it were in fact immoral. This gives sure footing to those who freely claimed, "Show me in the Bible where slaveholding is a sin and I will quit the practice." It is interesting to note that while the silence of Jesus on slavery was interpreted as "permission," His silence on homosexuality is interpreted otherwise.

At least six letters of Paul clearly speak in the support of slavery (Smith 1972, 135). Those in favor of slavery preferred Colossians 3:22 and 4:1:

  * Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. (Col. 3:22).

  * Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Col. 4:1).

This is very clear and gives credence to the idea of divine authority to own slaves. The only requirement is for the master to treat their slave justly and fairly. One might think to treat a slave "just" would be to manumit him/her but that was not how these verses were understood. These verses went hand in hand with all the verses of the Old Testament and the malediction of Noah to strengthen the theological rational for the continuation of the practice of slavery. Some translations of the Bible substitute the word "servant" instead of "slave" to deflect opinion from the fact of the pro slavery stance in the New Testament; however, it cannot conceal the simple fact that the word "servant" is the Greek word for slave (δοῦλος) and was in common use in the first century to describe those who are slaves. To make matters worse, the word "master' in both of these verses is κυρίοις, meaning, "lord." Therefore, we have a command from the apostle Paul, under full inspiration of God, telling slaves to obey their earthly lords in everything. The slave must accept the role of slavery and must learn to be content. To the biblical literalist, this passage is binding and authorizes the institution of slavery forever. It must be forever because nowhere is it found in The New Testament a call to end the practice of slavery.

In March 2012, the Pennsylvania Non-Believers Organization erected a billboard in Harrisburg portraying an African American with a metal collar around his neck with the caption "Slaves Obey Your Masters Colossians 3:22." This billboard attracted a tremendous amount of attention drawing criticism from Mayor Linda Thompson who said "I'll continue to pray for the atheists, that they may find Jesus Christ one day." State Representative Thaddeus Kirkland, D-Chester, who is also a Baptist pastor, said that the "billboard takes the Bible out of context and depicts racism and hatred" (Associated Press, "Atheists Smear Christians with Slavery Billboard," 2012). The problem is that it is not out of context. Paul is very clearly speaking in regards to the Christian household, including wives, husbands, children, fathers and lastly, slaves. This billboard is in complete context. Within days the billboard was defaced, the African American community was greatly enraged, and the Pennsylvania Non-Believers Organization issued an apology. The fact remains that the billboard, as offensive as it was to the African American community, nevertheless was a correct theological and historical appraisal of Colossians 3:22. The outrage, rather than be directed at the Pennsylvania Non-Believers Organization, should be directed to those who while holding the Bible to be inerrant, authoritative and the perfect treasure of wisdom to guide one's life, refuse to acknowledge Paul might be wrong in supporting slavery. At a minimum, Paul's teaching on slavery should be widely known within Southern Baptist churches and discussed. The idea that every verse that does not fit with contemporary culture is "out of context" is insufficient due to the fact that this same verse was "in context" in 1845.

The acceptance that Rome, being a slave holding empire, somehow justified the acceptance and participation of slavery by the early church is unsatisfactory. The argument goes that Paul accepted slavery because it was accepted within his historical and social context. Paul was writing in his era therefore these passages on slavery are to be taken with that in mind and are not to be applied today. Again, the SBC hermeneutic of the Bible being inerrant, authoritative and absolute fail the test of consistency and reveals itself as being selective according to the desires of the current crop of religious authorities.

Another point sometimes made to defend Paul's statements on slavery is that slavery in Rome was not based on race. In Paul's era, slaves were those captured in war, children of slaves, taken in slavery against their will and forced into lifetime servitude. To be a slave was a position of shame, without honor. Families were broken up, and an owner could at will torture a slave and have him/her put to death for any reason (Glancy 2011, 5). The lack of a racial component is a poor justification of any form of human bondage. Slavery carries with it the idea of superiority and inferiority. This superiority and inferiority is based on a perceived inequality of birth, color, nationality, gender, class, or other category, real or imagined.

Some suggest Paul believed the imminent return of Jesus and this was the reason for his failure to address the slavery question, (Glancy 2011, 45) and the proslavery advocates in 19th century America took this same position. Slavery is permissible because Jesus is coming soon and all will be set free at that time. Many slave owners were amenable to teaching the Bible to their slaves in order to show them the Lord is coming soon, and all will be free ... someday. Not today, probably not tomorrow either, but someday all the slaves will be set free when Jesus comes again. In a doctoral class at the San Francisco Theological Seminary, the discussion was on racism, with a number of African America students in attendance. One of the Caucasian students suggested that African Americans need to "wait" and things will get better. Icy stares followed his statement. One of the female African American students slowly said, "Never tell us to wait. White people have been telling us to wait for hundreds of years, and we will never wait another day."

For one, this epistle (Colossians) is believed by many scholars to not have been written by Paul and is a one of the six disputed epistles (Colossians, Ephesians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus and II Thessalonians). One of the many reasons why these epistles are not accepted as Pauline is because of theological inconsistencies. It seems highly improbable the same Paul who wrote "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:28-29), is the same person that endorsed first century slavery with all of its suffering and humiliation. If, it is to be maintained that Paul did author these epistles, then his moral authority stands to be questioned.

There is a possibility that Paul himself was a slave-owner, given Paul's teaching regarding slaves and slavery, the ready supply of slaves, the authority to own slaves from the Torah, and the widespread cultural acceptance of slave ownership. In a similar slave culture in America, anyone of financial means, and the slightest of necessity, owned slaves. There simply was no good reason not to own slaves. It was profitable, socially accepted (even expected) and approved by God, according to His spokesmen in the South. Churches in 19th century America owned slaves, as did pastors, evangelists, theology professors, politicians and leading citizens in every field, from Thomas Jefferson to the President of the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America.

There would not be any reason for Paul not to own a slave because it was not considered a sin by anyone, and he himself wrote in favor and in full support of the institution. It is not discussed because it might cast all of Christianity into foul light. Even those who wrote extensively in support of slavery never bring up this subject. However, it is possible to use the Bible to justify slavery on the one hand, and on the other hand it is acceptable to never raise the question that Paul might have been a slave owner.

If the Bible is to be used to support slavery, then it is an imperative that one have a clear understanding of slavery in its fullest and what it is that we are attaching to the authority of the Bible. Slavery is about one individual owning another individual as if she were a form of livestock. The whole idea of polygenesis was if the African was not a human, then one would not be entitled to treat him/her as a human. This is the indignity of slavery that the Bible is made to support through the agency of Southern preachers.

Slavery is never about one person laboring for another without payment other than that of room and board. Slavery is not penury. Slavery has always been the forceful subjugation of the will of one person to that of another through the use of brute force. Included in slavery is the fact a woman's body belonged to her master. Jennifer A. Glancy in her book _Slavery as a Moral Problem in the Early Church and Today_ states: "Throughout antiquity, slaves were the sexual property of their owners. For untold numbers of women, girls, boys, and young men, vulnerability to sexual desires of their owners was central to the experience of slavery" (Glancy 2011, 82). A woman's body belongs to the master, and the man's labor belongs to the master. This is what it means to say the Bible permits slavery. This is why there is little mention of the likelihood Paul was a slaveholder. The onus of slavery cannot taint the Apostle Paul and not have it reflect upon Christianity as a whole. It seems incongruent with the teachings of Jesus that the burden of slavery is happily placed on the African, justified by the Bible. The slaves on the plantation were told they were slaves and their role in life was to obey their master, according to the Apostle Paul. The only other option is to abandon the idea of inerrancy and absolutism and adopt a hermeneutic that says, "What the Bible says, may not mean what we think it does."

While Paul did not invent Christianity, he was the one that popularized it in the first century. The epistles he wrote to the churches were authoritative. If we take the Colossian epistle to be an epistle written by Paul, then we have a clear admonition that slavery is consistent with the will of God. Since, Southern Baptists hold that revelation is no longer progressive, having ended when the last book of the Bible was written, then slavery cannot be amended or banished.

In the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus, we find further argument that was used often for the protection of the institution of slavery. I Timothy 6:1-5 says:

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and

for disputes about words. (I Tim. 6:1-5).

In this passage, as Jennifer Glancy points out "baptism does not diminish a slave's obligation to exhibit deference. Indeed, baptism is said to intensify a slave's obligations if his or her master is a Christian" (Glancy 2011, 59). While it is understood that it is difficult to critique one's culture, Jesus readily accepted that challenge. Paul seemed to lack the courage to address his culture if he, in fact, authored these slave epistles. It cannot stand that Paul is the champion of the Gentiles, the first and foremost Apostle and the authority on the clarity of the gospel of Jesus, and yet be inured to the suffering of millions under the yoke of slavery. Not only indifferent to the greatest evil of his day but to pen letters under divine inspiration that would carry the seed of slavery throughout the world for thousands of years. The SBC, who believe in biblical inerrancy and absolutism, refuse to acknowledge a single line in all thirteen epistles attributed to Paul could have been written at a later date by other unknown authors.

While it can be seen that church members owned slaves in the New Testament ("Those who have believing masters..."), in I Timothy 3:1-13, manumission is not listed as a requirement to fill the office of bishop or deacon. In fact, slaves are not mentioned in the entire litany of expectations. The possessing of slaves is assumed.

In Titus 2:9-10, Paul writes:

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to answer back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Here Paul allegedly tells slaves they are under divine injunction to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect. It must be remembered the body of a slave was at the complete disposal of the master. It was expected of the slave to submit to any sexual advances of the master and it would not be possible to consider any resistance. This verse was perfect to the slaveholders in the South. It contained everything they needed to completely dominate their slaves physically, mentally, sexually, all under the authority of God given by inspiration to the Apostle Paul. The slave could not answer back, could not "pilfer," and had to show perfect faithfulness. If these requirements were met, they get to be an "ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior." It seems to be great program for the slaveholder but not so great for the slave.

It seems like the writer of this epistle is addressing a specific problem certain slaveholders were experiencing. The slaves perhaps were getting "uppity," and they needed Paul to put them in place. This verse has been used to put slaves "in their place" ever since. It is a wonder that African Americans today do not completely repudiate the Bible, Christianity, and the God of the Southern Baptists, based on their claiming such literature is the divine inerrant word of God.

The fact that not all slaves were treated poorly is an inadequate defense. Some slaves did live in adequate quarters; their work was not too difficult and may have even liked their master. However, slavery is not just about "a" slave, it is also about the institution of slavery. The institution of slavery accounts for the slaves that were not treated well, fed well, clothed well, and housed well. The institution of slavery is what allowed the torture and death of slaves for any reason or no reason, the sexual exploitation of men and women, separation of families, denigration, having to acknowledge another person as your "master." It is the institution of slavery that Paul never challenges in these Deutero-Pauline epistles. However, in Galatians 3:28, an epistle scholars agree Paul _did_ author, Paul writes: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." This passage does challenge the institution of slavery. It establishes an authority that can be carried through the centuries to challenge the institution of slavery wherever it might be found. It can be used to demonstrate the progressive revelation of God ending the era of slavery in the Old Testament and entering into a period of freedom for all people in the New Testament.

Another positive slave passage attributed to Paul is in I Corinthian 7:18-22, where Paul writes:

Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything. Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. (I Cor. 7:18-22).

Here, Paul acknowledges the fact that some believers are in a state of bondage but encourages them that if the opportunity ever arises for them to be free, to take advantage. There are no statements of obeying their masters, forgoing stealing, being servile in all circumstances and the dreadful idea of the perpetuity of endless slavery. This verse suggests freedom is a possibility and it can be argued that this is a "sown seed" that could eventually lead to the downfall of the institution of slavery. Of course, this verse was employed by those who worked to ensure that Africans remained enslaved by pointing out that what Paul is "really" saying is to be born a slave is to die a slave. Even the positive statements of Paul were interpreted in such a way they could be used as a defense of slavery.

One of the more severe statements attributed to Paul is found in the Epistle to the Ephesians 6:5-8:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free. (Eph. 6:5-8).

This passage raises the level of the role of the slave to one of fear and trembling. In context, while the master, parents and children are not told to act out of "fear and trembling," the slaves were. It is not enough for the slave to obey the master but now it must be done in a state of being that is raised to the level of terror. This state of terror is constant, while the master is watching and when the master is absent. This idea of the constant state of being under complete authority _and_ terror is no less equivalent to totalitarianism. Further, the idea of this servitude, complete and total, with fear and trembling must be done with enthusiasm, or else. The threat is unspecified but it remains that wherever there is a promise to reward for good acts there remains a threat to punish for wrong action. Paul ties the promise of reward in the life to come with the slaves' servile obedience in the present life. Again, the perfect passage for those who use the Bible to justify slavery, "Serve with fear and trembling and act like you enjoy it...you will be repaid someday in the life to come," was the simple, clear message of Ephesians 6:5-8.

It is clear the writer of this passage wants to be sure slaves do not mistake freedom in Christ for freedom from slavery. Freedom in Christ is for God to grant; freedom from slavery is for the master to grant. It has been suggested that what Paul is referring to is a work ethic. Workers are to respect and work hard for their employers. Even such an odd attempt to circumvent the clear intention of this verse how is it one could ever extrapolate the idea that an employee should render service to the employer with fear and trembling. Apart from allegorizing, and there certainly is no authority to allegorize a narrative that was never given as an allegory, there is no other way to interpret this verse other than its most obvious meaning. There are allegories in the Bible but this is not one of them.

The author of Ephesians was clearly establishing which side of the debate on slavery the author was on. It would be understandable that slaves, especially slaves that have become believers, would hope for freedom. This idea of manumission based upon the charity of their masters would be too much to even consider. The community needed an authority specifically establishing the institution of slavery among the fellow believers to continue. The authority they claimed was the apostle Paul.

It would be difficult for a slave in America to survey all the depravations slavery brings and then believe in a God that ensures he/she will never be free. In fact, God is watching and waiting for when the slave dies, and then the slave will be judged whether they served their master with fear and trembling. This explains why many African Americans to this day prefer their own churches and their own denominations. It still must hurt to read these verses in the Bible that were used to enslave their ancestors.

Paul's short epistle to Philemon is quite different and it _is_ considered to be a monograph of Paul. Paul very tenderly considers the plight of the runaway slave, Onesimus, and writes Philemon asking him to receive his slave back without reprisal. It would not be easy for Paul to suggest a runaway slave to return to his or her master because a runaway slave was often afforded the most serious punishments ranging from torture to execution by the mancepts. A mancept was a public official who was expert in the torture and execution of slaves and possessed all the tools necessary for the work (Glancy 2011, 21). It is true this verse was used by slave advocates in America to argue for the return of runaway slaves, but it is clear this is not a mandate for the practice of slavery. It can be argued Paul never insinuated his act was to be a model for all others for all time.

Paul had great affection for Onesimus and had Philemon indicated he would hand over Onesimus to the mancepts upon arrival, it is not likely Paul would have sent him back. Paul uses all his power and authority to advocate for Onesimus. Paul calls Onesimus "my child" (τέκνου), and tells Philemon how much he has meant to him in his old age and his imprisonment and that if he (Onesimus) owes Philemon anything, charge it to his account. This slave became very close to Paul, and Paul is doing everything possible to gain him safety. This is hardly a proof text for the hunting down runaway slaves in America, as it so often was used (Glancy 201, 95).

I Peter 2:18-23 is another verse used by those who needed authority from the Bible, and thus God, to justify their participation in slavery:

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is to your credit if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, where is the credit in that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. (I Pet. 2:18-23).

This passage is attributed to the apostle Peter and is the only non-Pauline work that deals with the relationship of slave to master. This passage instructs the slave to submit to the authority to his or her master regardless of their cruelty. If the master beats the slave for an infraction he/she is not guilty of committing, then the slave must bear up under the beating. If, however the master beats the slave for something he/she _did_ commit then the slave gets what they deserved. This passage gave license, and gives license in places where slavery is still practiced, for slave owners to beat their slaves, if they deserve to be beaten, and it is a beating they must accept. It is the role of the slave to submit to the will of the master and it does not matter if the master is cruel or kind, the slave role is clearly defined and immutable. Peter, unlike Paul had a great deal of contact with Jesus and a statement telling slaves they need to endure beatings seems out of character with the teachings of Jesus, as will be explored further in this book. There is much debate of whether Peter, being illiterate could have written two epistles entailing the finest usage of the Greek language found in the New Testament. Peter might have used an amanuensis (secretary) but that is also unlikely according to Bart Ehrman in a speech given at the Commonwealth Club of California in April 2011 (Common Wealth Club San Francisco, 2011). Ehreman concludes that I Peter is a pseudepigraph. This New Testament verse seems to give tacit permission for the recognition and the continuation of slavery as a practice sanctioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New Testament. Slave owners in America certainty thought this and those opposed to slavery would not use this verse in their argument against slavery.

This Petrine material can be cited as recognizing and authorizing the institution of slavery. It assumes the institution of slavery, has specific instructions regulating the behavior of slaves, and it ends with God's approval when these instructions are carried out. There is no discussion of manumission, just a continued life of servitude. It cannot be said that the life of a slave is improved by becoming a believer in the Christian religion. There is no change, the slave is a slave and the master must be obeyed. Before Jesus, being a slave was bad enough as it was, now God is involved in the practice of slavery, if these epistles are authoritative, and now they have two masters, one as demanding as the next.

The literalist and inerrant position places the church in a position of either allegorizing this passage, or affirming the fact that a slave must learn how to defer to the authority of their masters, even if the masters are cruel. Every word is this verse is inconsistent with the message of freedom contained in the teachings of Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught everyone who was there that day to call God "Father" implying that all humans share the same relationship with God. This is consistent with Paul's word to the Galatians that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28), and supportive of the idea all are made in the image of God, not just the master of the slave.

As long as the inerrant view holds, and the disputed epistles of Paul are given the same weight, as the undisputed writings of Paul there is no defense for the abolition of slavery. Regrettably, it is the case that I Timothy 6:1-5, Titus 2:9-10, Colossians 3:22 and 4:1, Ephesians 6:5-8, and I Peter 2:18-23 all effectively erase the statements found in Galatians 3:28, and I Corinthians 7:18-22, extolling freedom for the slave.

These are the arguments made in the defense of slavery as presented by the Baptists in the South that in 1845 organized into the Southern Baptist Convention. Their method of interpreting the Bible has not changed and they still hold to the doctrines of total inerrancy, infallibility and absolutism. The institution of slavery no longer exists in America, but the one book that gave divine support to that evil still exists and the arguments still remain. Those arguments are as potent now as they were then. The SBC while declaring the evils of slavery still use the same methods of interpretation that sustained such evil. Therefore the question remains: is the Bible itself flawed? Or, is it the interpreters and their methods of interpretation that are in error?

PART III

The Southern Baptist Convention and its use of Biblical Absolutism in the Persecution of Women

Chapter 6

The Southern Baptist Convention and the "Woman Problem."

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him. If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them. Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.

—Sojourner Truth

The barrels of the cannons of the Confederacy have fallen silent. The war between the North and South has come to a close with the surrender of the South. Now, the idea of slavery being a divine institution, once championed by Baptists in the South, came into question. Those champions of the pulpit are now viewed in a different light because their propagation of the divine approval of the institution of slavery is now deemed false. There must have been a great deal of introspection and questioning among religious leaders of the South of how it came to be they had made such a terrible mistake in supporting and defending slavery. These were highly trained men (There were no women recognized as having been involved in the founding of the SBC.) who led the willing South to believe that slavery was not only an institution established and sanctioned by God but that it was also worth fighting, killing and dying to preserve.

It is important to ask how the defense of slavery could have ever been allowed to develop. One answer to this question is that it is not so much the Bible that is to blame but those who have corrupted the Bible to justify the practice of slavery. Using the Bible to justify slavery demonstrates how the Bible can be used to justify any number of atrocities using faulty hermeneutics, but it is important to control such aberrations in the future. After the defense of slavery in the 19th century, one might think the religious leaders of the South would recognize that either their own willingness to participate in slavery was at the root of the problem, or perhaps the Bible itself is an evil instrument. It is important to remember these men were trained and educated in the finest seminaries. The problem was a matter of hermeneutics, how the Bible was being interpreted. A literal, absolutist view of the Bible has in the past and continues to lead the church into becoming an institution of oppression. It seems a flawed hermeneutic may be the core reason that led otherwise intelligent men to mislead themselves and others into vigorously committing themselves to the defense of slavery, and this same flawed hermeneutic is being used for the preventing of the flourishing of others, in the 21st century.

The SBC dropped biblical literalism in the support of slavery, but it has currently retrieved it to address the "woman problem." W.E.B. Du Bois, tells how he felt when, as an African American, he was asked: "how does it feel to be a problem?"

How does it feel to be a problem? They say, I know an excellent colored man in my town; or, I fought at Mechanicsville; or, do not these Southern outrages make your blood boil? At these I smile, or am interested, or reduced the boiling to a simmer, as the occasion may require. To the real question, how does it feel to be a problem? I seldom answer a word. (Du Bois 1903, 1-3).

African Americans were seen as a problem to Southern Baptists in the 19th and early 20th century, and now, greatly due to the advances in Civil Rights Law, the Southern Baptists have turned their attention to a new "problem:" women leaving their perceived and imposed "place" and doing such outrageous acts as "bobbing" their hair, painting their faces, speaking to mixed audiences, and preaching (Rice 1941, 42-43; 84; 66-77). It seems as if there is no greater fear among Southern Baptists than women preachers, as evidenced by the number of resolutions against female preachers that have been adopted at their conventions. B.H. Carroll, founder and former president of Southwestern Theological Seminary embodies the current SBC thought on women preachers: "A woman pastor is a flat contradiction of the apostolic teaching and is open rebellion against Christ our King and high treason against his sovereignty" (Morgan 2003, 170).

The SBC believes it is not possible for women to fulfill the role of pastor, or even be allowed to preach. Women are limited to teaching other women and children and to augment the ministry of her husband, who is considered to be the spiritual leader of the family and the head of the house. She is supposed to willingly subject herself to her husband's leadership. In the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention, they state that no church that has a female pastor will be allowed membership, and any existing church that calls a female pastor will have their membership terminated (Southern Baptist of Texas Convention Constitution/Bylaws Article IV; Section I).

Miroslav Volf, theology professor at Yale Divinity, points out "Faith malfunctions when it becomes an instrument of oppression" (Volf 2011, 18). The current dominant view concerning the woman _problem_ is one of oppression. Considered as such, the SBC presentation of the Christian experience is a malfunction of faith. It was a malfunctioning faith when it used biblical literalism to support slavery, and it is a malfunctioning faith when it oppresses women, or any other group. The difference is that slaves could do little or nothing about their oppression, whereas women are able to challenge the literalist approach of biblical interpretation and can withdraw from those who seek to dominate them through biblical arguments.

As will be demonstrated, the Southern Baptists, since 1845, have insisted that all women (Christian or non-Christian) assume a subordinate position to all men (Christian or non-Christian). The formula that is used to support this position is I Corinthians 11:3. It states, "But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." Some apply this to mean all women are subject to all men, while others interpret this to apply only to men in the context of the marriage (Baptist Faith and Marriage, Article XVIII). It is possible that in some degree this subordination comes from the tradition of the South, where men were considered to be the caretakers of women, as expressed by David Morgan in _Southern Baptist Sisters_ :

The denomination (SBC) was founded for the purpose of affirming the Southern way of life, a way of life that featured a society dominated by white males, a society in which women were put on a pedestal and adored as long as they acquiesced in their subordinate position, and a society-worst of all- that held black people in slavery and regarded doing so as an act of Christian charity. (Morgan 2003, 5).

The idea that a woman needs to be under the authority of a man, be it husband or father, is archaic and yet this idea still prevails among Southern Baptists. Charles Hodges (1797-1878) expresses this doctrine and expectation: "There is no deformity of human character from which we can turn with deeper loathing than from a woman forgetful of her nature and clamorous for the vocation and rights of men" (Rogers 2009, 28). The 19th century belief that Africans are fine as long as they know their place has been carried into the 21st century; only now it is a matter of the woman knowing her place. The Bible is used by the SBC to impose a woman's place in society, and that is under the authority of a man. The SBC believes that a woman's role is to be a homemaker and a child bearer. As long as a woman does not forget her place, attempt to usurp the role of a man, and claim to be called to preach or pastor, then God will bless her and her family. The husband is expected to insure his woman is reminded of her place. Otherwise, he is not managing his home well nor assuming his spiritual responsibly to lead the family.

In the 19th and early 20th Centuries, Southern men had more clarity on the question of the role of the women in society. David Morgan expresses it this way:

All ranks of Southern men agreed that women should be subordinate and perhaps even docile. The belief was virtually universal among Southern males that God had "appointed a place and duty for females, out of which they can neither accomplish their destiny nor secure their happiness. (Morgan 2003, 13).

These Southern values shaped the idea of the role of women that influenced the character of the SBC. When women leave their appointed place, they become a problem. Southern Baptist men believe this problem is not a social problem but one that questions the revealed will of God. To challenge the idea of a woman not being under the authority of a man is an attack on the Bible. Women must accept their place and submit to men in order to advance the cause of Christ and to protect the integrity of Church and home (The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 1987).

Women, however, do have a choice in this matter. Like Lucy Stone argues, "Do not tell us before we are even born even, that our province is to cook dinners, darn stockings, and sew on buttons" (Schneir 1992, 107). If it is true that the subordination of women is a holdover from outdated Southern culture, then it can be easily dismissed. However, if it is undergirded by arguments from the Bible, then these arguments must be challenged and shown to be a false representation of God. This cannot be accomplished without calling into question the motives, methods, and the people who have advanced these arguments. The primary proponents of the subornation of women in the SBC are influential leaders within the SBC who often pastor large churches and hold positions of authority. They will not surrender their theological positions, however damaging and oppressive they may be, even in the face of compelling arguments.

The SBC's stated position on the "woman problem" is found in the _Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_ , resolutions that that have been adopted at annual Sothern Baptist conventions and the doctrinal statements in the _Baptist Faith and Message._ _The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_ is a formal statement created in 1987 by a number of influential Southern Baptists and other evangelicals. Under the leadership of its seminary president, Paige Patterson, one of the statement's original architects, this statement was adopted by the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas and included in the seminary's policy manual. A news article written by Keith Collier on October 26, 2009, reports:

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary trustees approved the addition of the _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ and the _Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_ to the seminary's policy manual during their fall meeting, Oct. 21. The statements will be used as guides in the hiring and evaluation processes at the seminary, Patterson said, noting, "More than anything else, it establishes the general posture of the school." (Collier 2009).

This article is a formal announcement that the theological position of the subordination of women will be used as a standard for all incoming professors and that it will be taught to all ministerial students. The Danvers Statement will be used as a guide in the hiring process according to seminary president, Paige Patterson. This article means that the flagship seminary of the SBC has made a firm commitment to the doctrine of the subornation of women. One would question why the Danvers Statement is necessary if the Bible so clearly teaches the subornation of women. It becomes necessary when one begins to view the Bible with a hermeneutic of consistency, context and common sense and begins to see that women are just as capable to preach, pastor, or do anything else a man can do without violating a single biblical principle. There have been many influential female preachers throughout history. However, John Rice argues that all the good they do is cancelled out by the evil they do:

Yes, women preachers have done much good and I suppose have won many souls. But more good would have been done and more souls would have been won if we had followed God's way instead of man's in this matter. Women preachers, in disobeying God, have done more harm than good. (Rice 1941, 56).

Prominent Southern Baptist leaders played key roles in the formation of the Danvers Statement, including Paige Patterson. It is the weight given to this document by powerful SBC leaders that allowed the Danvers Statement to become so easily codified into SBC seminaries and churches. It was easy for pastors of small churches throughout the country to join these prominent leaders in the endorsement of the doctrine of male superiority. A parallel can be seen between those prominent pastors of the past that led the Church to endorse human bondage in the 19th century and the prominent pastors of today who follow the exact pattern of using their influence to lead the church into subjugating women. The same Bible, the same use of biblical literalism will lead to the same regretful oppression every time. This is why some like Sam Harris in his book _The End of Faith_ believes "The Bible contains mountains of life destroying gibberish" (Harris 2005, 22). This is a serious observation by Harris and cannot be dismissed when the Bible is used as a life-destroying instrument. And it is life destroying when it is used to prevent anyone from flourishing. As previously noted, Miroslav Volf describes any faith that is oppressive as a faith that is malfunctioning, and any expression of Christianity that adheres to statements like the Danvers Statement can only be described as oppressive.

The following are excerpts from the _Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,_ as adopted on December 1987:

Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart.

Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin.

Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community.

In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands' authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands' leadership.

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.

We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large. ( _The Danvers Statement_ 1987, reproduced here by permission).

This statement on the idea of a biblical manhood and womanhood that is being endorsed throughout the SBC serves to continue the practice of severely limiting the development and growth of women who allow themselves to remain in such restrictive and stifling spiritual situations. A woman who allows herself to come under such subordination, based on a male endorsed literal interpretation of the Bible, not only robs herself of God given freedom but also dooms her children to the same fate. This fundamentalist position depends on its followers to inculcate their children with the idea that boys are to dominate girls and that girls should submit to such domination because it is in accordance with God's plan for home, church and society. With this is mind, it is questionable why any woman would consider a male who holds these views to be a viable candidate for marriage knowing it will include a lifetime of servitude for her and her daughters and a corruption of her sons. Pat Roberson has no shame in expressing this view when he says: "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have to accept the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that is the way it is period" (Dawkins 2008, 328).

The rational for establishing the Danvers Statement was the perceived state of confusion in our society because women fail to recognize their proper place. Her "place" is subject to man due to the fact that was the original order established by God in the Garden of Eden. Then came the "Fall" and with this a perversion of the relationship between man and woman. The SBC argues that women have perverted this relationship, not men. It is the woman who has ruined the relationship by refusing to acknowledge the headship of man. Because of the refusal to submit to man and recognize his authority, the SBC and the Danvers Statement argue that the results include an increase in the physical and emotional abuse in the family, the pornographic portrayal of human sexuality resulting in destructive consequences in our families, and detrimental effects in our churches, and the culture at large.

Such extreme claims need evidence. However, there is no social scientific evidence to substantiate the claim that society would collapse if women fail to come under the authority of her husband or of men in general. The family will not collapse into a homosexual, perverse, and pornographic degenerate state that will ruin churches and society. In fact, the rate of divorce among atheists is slightly lower than that of evangelical Christians (Cline n.d.) There is no verifiable evidence to support the idea that the family and society will fall if a woman fails to acknowledge man as her headship authority. There is no evidence for this idea other than the literalistic interpretation of the Bible that favors men.

The understanding implied through the use of multiple Bible verses to support the doctrine of female subordination is that the Bible is irrefutable and authoritative, and if one fails to agree with this position, then they are in rebellion against God and God's established order. While this may seem an unbelievable statement, it is endorsed by many evangelical fundamentalists. To question this perceived truth is to question the Word of God. However, of the approximately 750,000 words in the Bible, it is possible to construe the Bible to support any position, for or against. It is difficult to believe that these claims go unquestioned and unchallenged by many women who willingly become submissive followers of their male counterparts.

Take for example the idea of a biblical role of manhood and womanhood. Those who hold to the idea that God has clearly established distinctive roles for a man and a woman do not realize that it is very difficult to determine exactly who is male and who is female. According to the Intersex Society of North America the identity of gender can be very difficult to determine at birth and requires a number of highly difficult tests to be certain. Concerning this fact, it appears naïve to rely solely on external genitalia to determine gender. There are many other factors to consider in gaining an understanding of gender, many of which remain unknown until later in a person's life. It has been estimated that in one out of 1,500 live births a "child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in," according to the Intersex Society of North America (Inter Sex Society of North America. How common is intersex?). In reflection, during my examination for ordination, I was never asked if I was a man. It was an assumption was based upon outward appearance.

For thousands of years these complex gender tests never existed. This suggests it was not possible to consider it the manifest will of God that men should dominate women because it was not possible to conclusively tell a man from a woman. The only test for gender that existed for thousands of years was the presence of male genitalia. If this is the only acceptable test, then the fact of possession of male genitalia somehow suggest superiority.

The Danvers Statement asserts that society is confused regarding the differences between masculinity and femininity leading to widespread decay in culture and that it needs the inerrant view of the Bible to help clarify and remediate this confusion. But perhaps it is the biblical fundamentalists that are confused. The problem with those who hold to the Danvers Statement is that its major flaw is that it imposes a single standard on all women to submit to the authority of men and a failure to do so is a failure before God. It fails to acknowledge that every relationship between a man and a woman is unique, and in order for that relationship to thrive, there can be no outward universal imposed by church or society. It is an observable fact that in many relationships the dominant personality may be a woman or it may be a man. What is important is that the relationship flourish and that both people be allowed to reach their fullest potential. It is also an observable fact that when a strong, competent and capable woman is forced to submit or obey her husband without question, this could easily become a malfunctioning union. It would seem that men would welcome the gifts, talents, and abilities of women and would encourage every woman to rise to her fullest in her desire to serve God in all her capacities just as men. Instead, the highest a woman can rise, in the opinion of the SBC, is that of a complementary role to their male counterpart. A woman is to be considered a helper to men because of their gender.

This aversion to women runs so deep that the SBC fights any attempt to include any gender-neutral terms to enter into their lexicon. On March 21, 2012, the President of the SBC, Bryant Wright, spoke at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (GGBTS Chapel Service, Mill Valley, CA, 2012), and the title of his message was "Man's greatest problem." The entire message did not include a single gender-neutral term. This is done because it is difficult to claim inerrancy and to simultaneously recognize that gender-neutral terms might be allowable in biblical translation and biblical interpretation. This has always been a problem with the SBC as evidenced by the resolutions entertained and accepted at their annual conventions. The following are exerts from resolutions that passed at the 2011 annual meeting of the SBC:

_Resolution on The Gender-Neutral 2011 New International Version of the Bible_

RESOLVED, That the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 14-15, 2011 express profound disappointment with Biblica and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God's inspired Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage pastors to make their congregations aware of the translation errors found in the 2011 NIV; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the 2011 NIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community. (SBC Resolutions 2011).

This recent resolution affirms that any gender-neutral language Bible is to be considered inaccurate and thereby banned by all SBC bookstores. In addition, any gender-neutral version will not be used in any biblical material printed by the SBC and encourages all pastors to denounce such versions. Also, all publishers who publish gender-neutral versions of the Bible will meet with the same treatment of banning.

At the 2002, Southern Baptist convention held at Saint Louis, Missouri, a similar resolution was passed that also carried dire overtones. The following are excerpts from the SBC resolution on the New International Bible:

Resolution on Today's New International Version

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist "gender-neutral" translations of Scripture; and

WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and

WHEREAS, This translation obscures significant biblical references to the person and the work of our Lord Jesus Christ by altering references to "father," "son," "brother," and "man;" and

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, June 11-12, 2002, express profound disappointment with the International Bible Society and Zondervan Publishing House for this inaccurate translation of God's inspired Scripture; and be it further

RESOLVED, That, consistent with the Bible translation resolution adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1997, we respectfully request that the agencies, boards, and publishing arms of the Southern Baptist Convention refrain from using this translation in our various publications and from using it in printing copies or portions of copies; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that LifeWay not make this inaccurate translation available for sale in their bookstores; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we cannot commend the TNIV to Southern Baptists or the larger Christian community. (SBC Resolutions 2002).

Also in 1997, we see an earlier resolution that informs all publishers that the largest evangelical denomination will not recommend any translation of the Bible that uses gender-neutral terminology:

_Resolution On Bible Translation_

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Dallas, Texas, June 17-19, 1997, urge every Bible publisher and translation group to continue to use time honored, historic principles of biblical translation and refrain from any deviation to seek to accommodate contemporary cultural pressures, understanding that we are anxious to support the most accurate translations; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we respectfully request that the agencies, boards, and publishing arms of the Southern Baptist Convention refrain from using any such translations in our various publications, and from using them in printing copies or portions of copies of the Bible.

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to be continually vigilant regarding this matter and prayerful for the Bible publishers and translators in the monumental task that they undertake. (SBC Resolution, 1997).

With an understanding of the SBC's insistence on every word in the Bible being inerrant and unchangeable, it is considered tampering with the word of God to change a "he" to "them" or a "him" to a "him and her." Therefore, it is easy to understand why the president of the SBC would be careful to exclude any gender-neutral language in his address at the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. The position that guarantees the subornation of women is based on literal translation of the Bible, meaning it is absolute in all matters, and this demands all language in the Bible must remain unchanged, especially in any way that would favor female advancement.

The fallacy of this argument is there is no official Bible, and every Bible is a copy of a copy many times over going back two thousand years, all of them disagreeing in many parts. There are many errors and contradictions throughout the Bible making a claim of inerrancy an impossible claim. As stated by Bart Ehrman in _Misquoting Jesus_ , "there are more differences in our (New Testament) manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament" (Ehrman 2005, 10). Because there is more than one single discrepancy, error, omission, addition or variance, a claim of inerrancy simply cannot be made. In addition, Paul never once makes the claim he is writing to all the churches for all time and never considered that he was composing inerrant scripture or that he was speaking _for_ God. If he were, there would not be so many contradictions within his own theology. Paul was providing a first century hermeneutic, interpreting Jesus to his contemporaries. Much of what Paul wrote was cultural, being subject to the first century Greco-Roman world in which he lived. Paul was interpreting Jesus to this first century world and never considered that he was inventing Christianity for thousands of years to come.

Preventing a woman from achieving her highest potential cannot be for her sake, or the sake of her family or for society at large. This is evidenced in how far women have progressed in the professional world. Miriam Schneir in her work _Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings_ , observes: "As the friend of the negro assumes that one man cannot by right hold another in bondage, so should the friend of woman assume that man cannot by right lay even well-meant restrictions on woman" (Schneir 1992, 68). No good can arise from holding woman in bondage based upon a male interpretation of the Bible that cannot be demonstrated as a valid interpretation.

For the SBC, it is not enough to keep a woman subordinate to a man in home and society; it is also very important to the SBC to keep women out of the pulpit. A number of resolutions have been adopted by the SBC, including the one in 1984 that sets forth the prevailing attitude of the Southern Baptists toward women in ministry. The following are excerpts from the resolution on the ordination of women:

The Resolution on Ordination and the Role of Women in Ministry

WHEREAS, The New Testament does not mandate that all who are divinely called to ministry be ordained; and

WHEREAS, In the New Testament, ordination symbolizes spiritual succession to the world task of proclaiming and extending the gospel of Christ, and not a sacramental transfer of unique divine grace that perpetuates apostolic authority; and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures attest to God's delegated order of authority (God the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, man the head of woman, man and woman dependent one upon the other to the glory of God) distinguishing the roles of men and women in public prayer and prophecy (1 Cor. 11:2-5); and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures teach that women are not in public worship to assume a role of authority over men lest confusion reign in the local church (1 Cor. 14:33- 36); and

WHEREAS, While Paul commends women and men alike in other roles of ministry and service (Titus 2:1-10), he excludes women from pastoral leadership (1 Tim. 2:12) to preserve a submission God requires because the man was first in creation and the woman was first in the Edenic fall (1 Tim. 2:13ff); and

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we not decide concerns of Christians doctrine and practice by modern cultural, sociological, and ecclesiastical trends or by emotional factors; that we remind ourselves of the dearly bought Baptist principle of the final authority of Scripture in matters of faith and conduct; and that we encourage the service of women in all aspects of church life and work other than pastoral functions and leadership roles entailing ordination. (SBC Resolutions 1984).

Note the extensive use of Bible verses to offer proofs of the position that pastoral ministry is reserved for those anatomically classified as male. It is the position of the SBC that man is the head of woman, and if a woman seeks to usurp her position in the church, confusion will be the result. Ordination, described as a spiritual succession, is limited only to men. The woman's place is in the home, and it is there, it is assumed, that she will build up the kingdom of God. Throughout many of the SBC resolutions against women, a pattern is used that on the one hand praises them; then on the other hand, in very clear and explicit terms, relegates them to a lesser status. It is as if it tries to mesmerize women by words of praise, and then, she becomes blind to words that follow telling of her perpetual bondage. Former SBC President James Merritt in 2001 states, "The scripture makes it very plain without any apology that the calling of God into the ministry ... is for men only" (Morgan 2003, 83). However not all are in agreement with such a claim. Then president of Southeastern Seminary, Randall Lolley, labeled the resolution passed in 1984 as:

...bad exegesis, bad hermeneutics, bad theology, bad Christology, bad soteriology, bad ecclesiology, bad missiology, bad anthropology, bad sociology, bad psychology, bad manners and worst of all, 'bad Baptist.' He added, "if we had a way to repeal it, I would be working on that now. (McCoy 2011, 5).

In 1987, Dr. Randall Lolley resigned as President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary rather than comply with the demand to implement the new doctrines of male superiority and female subornation.

Insecurity among male leadership in the SBC translated into male dominance in the pulpit and led to a revision of the 1963 _Baptist Faith and Message_ to insure there would be no mistaking that the role of the pastor is for men only. The _Baptist Faith and Message_ was amended to state:

Article VI. The Church

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. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ).

This article is a very clear message to all SBC churches that ordination to pastoral ministry is for men only, replete with many Bible verses to support this position. It attempts to be not a mere matter of opinion, but a matter of God's holy decree announced in the inerrant scripture. Accordingly, there are certain pastoral tasks according to the SBC that only a man can fulfill. A pastor is a proclaimer, teacher, administrator and a minster. All of these tasks when accomplished by a woman are supposedly an insult to God and a perversion of the teachings of the Bible. This seems to insist there is some sort of divine impartation to men, not women, to carry out tasks related to the church. But it is easily demonstrable that these tasks require no special divine impartation to carry out the Great Commission, speak publicly of spiritual matters and to do works of mercy and ministry.

In regards to ordination, if it is to be believed that ordination is to be reserved for men only, then that must mean that there must be some special characteristic that men possess that women do not, or that the act of ordination brings with it a mystical impartation of enabling ability that qualifies men alone for the work of ministry. Southern Baptists would deny both of these assertions while still holding to the idea that only men can do the work of pastoral ministry. If ordination does not impart a special quality to the recipient, and men in themselves possess no inherent quality, then the only discriminator is that Southern Baptists reject female minsters because they simply prefer men. However, the rejection of women as inferior and unsuited to the work of the pastor based on biblical arguments and a literal interpretation of the Bible uses the authority of the Bible to demean women and hinder their personal growth. This is not only unreasonable and unacceptable; it is a poor presentation of the Christian religion and a malfunctioning of the faith in general.

For Southern Baptists, ordination is a form of credentialing, and is a public acknowledgement of a "calling" into ministry. However, many, such as Southern Baptist evangelist John Rice, founder of the _Sword of the Lord Magazine,_ believe that:

Feminism in the churches is a blight that has grieved God and made ineffectual His power and it has disillusioned the people and lost their confidence. I have no doubt that millions will go to hell because of the unscriptural practice of women preachers. (Morgan 2003, 171).

Evidently, it is inconceivable for some to believe a woman might feel called into ministry in the same manner a man feels called. When a man is called into ministry, it is affirmed and welcomed, but when a woman expresses a call into ministry, it is assumed she is mistaken. This is why the SBC does not ordain female missionaries; instead they have a "commissioning" service. A woman may be called into service to certain fields of service but none that would require ordination.

The strange truth about the idea of a calling is that it is completely subjective, is accompanied by no outward evidence, and everyone has to take the word of the one who claims to be called. There is no evidence required other than a simple statement. There has never been a single education requirement for the ordination of a Southern Baptist pastor. Rarely is a statement of calling challenged because one person's word is a good as another in these matters, especially if one claims the calling is from God into Christian service. Unless it is a woman that claims to be called into Christian pastoral service, then there must be a mistake. One woman, in response to a questionnaire presented to her, reported, "When, as a young woman, I was seeking the blessing of the church for missionary service, my pastor said, 'when will you get it through your thick skull that when the church says no, God says no'" (Creegan & Pohl 2005, 101).

Resolutions passed at Southern Baptist conventions, the strict control and limitation of ordination, prohibiting acceptance of Bible translations that contain gender-neutral language, and the codification of these practices in the _Baptist Faith and Message_ all work to portray an unmistakable desire for women to remain under the dominion of men. Accordingly, it is asserted that women will never enter the pulpit as a pastor of any church without consequences. It is believed that a woman who refuses to acknowledge these truths from God will bring great harm to her family, church and her society.

The use of the Bible and God's authority to place women in a subordinate role to men can cause irreparable damage to the spiritual health of women. Any form of one person ruling over another where the other person has no choice in the matter is a form of bondage. The role of a woman in the eyes of the SBC is one of homemaker, child bearer, and child rearer, and it is these mandatory roles that force many women into lives of drudgery and unfulfilled dreams. An example by female activist Margret Sanger, writing in 1920, is a clear reminder of the misery that results when a woman allows another to control her life:

The deadly chain of misery is all too plain to anyone who takes the trouble to observe it. A woman of the working class marries and with her husband lives in a degree of comfort upon his earnings. Her household duties are not beyond her strength. Then the children begin to come-one, two, three, four, possibly five or more. The earnings of the husband do not increase as rapidly as the family does. Food, clothing and general comfort in the home grow less as the numbers of the family increase. The woman's work grows heavier, and her strength is less with each child. Possibly, probably she has to go into a factory to add to her husband's earnings. There she toils, doing her housework at night. Her health goes, and the crowded conditions and lack of necessities in the home help to bring about disease, especially tuberculosis. Under the circumstances, the woman's chance of recovering from each succeeding childbirth grow less. Less too, are the chances of the child's surviving. (Schneir 1994, 329).

This is a chilling portrait of what misery can come from submitting to the expected bondage of any person for any reason and surrendering better judgment and freedom of choice. This chain of misery is donned like a cloak when a woman enters into an unequal contract in marriage and when the woman pledges to "obey him and serve him" while in the same contract, nothing of the sort is required of the man (Pearlman 1991, 10-11). In our own generation, we have seen the role of the woman restricted to the home until it became too great a burden to be able to survive on the income of the male provider alone. At that point, the Bible was reinterpreted to allow a woman to work outside the home after her responsibilities for the husband, children and home duties were accounted. Marriage for the woman could result in loss of identity, financial dependence, and a lifetime of human bondage all sanctioned by the Bible. This unequal alliance is rightfully identified as being "yoked" together, but it is a heavy yoke for the woman. It is not just a symbol of bondage but bondage itself.

The literal interpretation of the Bible to establish the inferiority of women in spiritual matters does not stop at women pastors, ordination, and the role of the women in the home. It also extends to a complete loss of identity as a woman in church, home and society. The complete picture of this view is found in a book by the aforementioned John R. Rice entitled, _Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers._ This book, written by a former Southern Baptist of great influence, describes the teachings of the literalist approach to the scriptures as it speaks to the role of a woman. While Southern Baptists generally do not speak publically about the teachings contained in this book, they agree that Rice's book adequately explains the SBC fundamentalist position on women. This book was written in 1941, when it was acceptable to keep a woman in the home, out of the work force, and committed to her husband and children. The verses relied upon to make this argument (I Cor. 7:4; 11:1-16; 14:34-35; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; I Tim. 2:9-1; Titus 2:3-5; 1 Peter 3:1-7) have not changed, and the Southern Baptist churches still use them in the same manner because it is necessary to do so in order to continue to hold to the doctrine of female subornation. The doctrines portrayed in _Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers_ are summarized:

Women are not to speak to mixed audiences, man is the head of woman, a woman is not to cut her hair as it is a sign of submission to husband or father, the divine order is God first then man then woman, a woman is to obey her husband even if the husband is wicked, a woman cannot speak in church if she wishes to learn something she must ask her husband when they arrive at the home, a woman can have no authority over _any_ man, a woman is not fitted for executive authority, a woman is morally weaker than a man, she is to be silent in church, she may teach other women and children but never men, she must dress modestly and not wear jewelry or make up, man is made in the image of God therefore God is masculine yet woman is made in the image of man. (Rice 1941, 1-30).

These views are familiar to Southern Baptists yet are rarely discussed in the local church. However, all of them come from a literal reading of the Bible and are necessary to the acceptance of the doctrine of male only ordination and the subornation of women to male headship. If any of these doctrines are called into question, then the doctrine of male ordination and female subornation are also called into question. Therefore, it is never asked why it is permissible for a woman to "bob" her hair today and yet it was prohibited in the past. If a question is raised concerning a woman speaking to a "mixed audience" (men present), a woman wearing makeup or jewelry, or even women speaking aloud in church, the answer is that it is based on the culture of the first century and is no longer observed. But if that is the case, then why is it not extended to one of the most grievous teachings of all and that is female subordination and denying women the opportunities to fulfill their callings in ministry through ordination and appointment to pastoral ministry. The answer is that the hermeneutic of literalism and absolutism is always selective, and it is the men doing the selecting.

Rice's view on the biblical role of women in church, home and society was the view shared by many Southern Baptists because they believed God had clearly expressed such a view in the Bible. This is why Rice could write with confidence:

There are women doctors, and any woman who can pass the medical course is permitted to be a doctor; yet how few men will call a woman doctor! How few businessmen on a board of directors would elect a woman as general manager of a big company. How few men would hire a woman boss over other men. The truth is that men know that which is so plain in all nature, that God did not intend a woman to be in authority over men. It is unnatural and inefficient. Then do you wonder that in the modern sissyfied churches the average he-man will have no part? (Rice 1941, 65).

While this sounds strange, it is no stranger than the president of the SBC speaking for 45 minutes in an address to seminary students at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in 2012 and not uttering a single gender-neutral term. Or, it is not as strange as Dr. Chad Brand, Professor of Christian Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, declaring:

Do we not believe that the Bible is sufficient, inerrant, and capable of speaking the truth on its own? The modern push for gender-neutral theological language and egalitarian truth is, quite simply, a reductionist deception. We must not be deceived. (Brand 1998).

These are strange and incredulous ideas put forth by religious authorities using the Bible as inerrant and absolute to lend credibility to their arguments. In the 19th century, the Baptists in the South used the same biblical hermeneutics to perpetuate the bondage of the African American as they use today to consign women to another expression of mandatory servitude. It is difficult to imagine any religious denomination that would so structure itself to insure that half the population of the world would not be allowed to flourish.

In the next chapter we will examine any Biblical support for the position of the SBC regarding men as superior to women and if it is the responsibility of the woman to obey her husband at all times.

The contributions of women to society are undeniable, as Mary Ritter Beard reminds us:

Looking back toward the horizon of dawning society what do we see standing clearly against the sky? Woman, assuming chief responsibility for the continuance and care of life. Thus we see primitive women as the inventor of the domestic arts, cooking, spinning, weaving, garnering, guarding, doctoring, providing comforts and conveniences and making beginnings in the decorative arts. They are launching...civilization. (Scheir 1994, 365).

Women's contributions have not been as a helpmate but fundamental on every level that has given rise to civilization. While writing this book, China sent its first woman into space, the fifty-sixth woman to become an astronaut (Barboza 2012). It has been well demonstrated that there is nothing a man can do that a woman is not capable of doing and doing it just as well. It is not only a matter of keeping a woman in her place using the authority of the Bible, but it is also standing in the way of progress that effects the entire human race.

Chapter 7

The Biblical Argument for the Subordination of Women

To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries.  
― Richard Dawkins, _The God Delusion_

In reply to famed atheist Richard Dawkins' summation of the Bible as being "just plain weird," it could be said that the Bible is not weird, but how the Bible is interpreted is "just plain weird." In this chapter we will examine how the Bible can be liberating to some and oppressive to others depending upon how it is interpreted. The Bible is an amazing collection of ancient documents that shed light on religion, history, society and how people understood the world in which they lived. One of the apparent historical observations is that religion has the habit of borrowing authority from God to oppress others considered different and thereby in some way an enemy that needs to be controlled.

The foundational argument for the oppression of women comes from the same book that was used to argue the justification of slavery of the African: the book of Genesis. Genesis, chapters one through three, tells the story of the first two humans created by God. First, in the passage of 1:26-31, both man and woman are created, but only man is created in God's image according to a literal reading. But if you interpret the Hebrew word for man to mean "mankind," then women are also made in the image of God. However, if woman is created at the same time as man, then there is a conflict with the story told of man and woman's creation in the subsequent chapter. Chapter two has a different story of creation where man is created from the dust of the ground with no mention of a woman. It is not until God finds man in a state of being incomplete that God decides to create a helpmate for him. Genesis 2:21-25 tells the story of woman coming into being, having been fashioned from a rib bone God had removed from Adam while he was in a deep sleep. The first account has man and woman being created at the same time, presumably from the same material, and the second creation account records a separate creation story. The second creation account suggests that the woman is not made in the image of God and that she is not even composed of the same material as Adam. The idea that woman is made of a different material is rightly lampooned by Emma Goldman (1869-1940) who said:

We have not yet outgrown the theological myth that woman has no soul, that she is a mere appendix to man, made out of his rib just for the convenience of the gentleman who was so strong that he was afraid of his own shadow. Perchance the poor quality of material whence woman comes is responsible for her inferiority. (Schneir 1992, 319).

If Biblical literalists maintain that women are made from a different material than men, then it seems like they would be motivated to prove that man is made from the dust of the ground while woman is made from the rib of man. Because a rib is composed of calcium, there should be a recognizable molecular signature that would identify women as being created from different material than a man. One would think biblical literalists would clamor to prove this point thus lending credence to the creation story of man having priority. However, it turns out all humans, male and female, consist of the same molecular material (nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids) without any distinction. Also, in the creation stories, there is no mention of anatomy that might be used as a discriminator. In fact there is no description of woman at all that might be used to differentiate her from man. If the material used for the creation of woman could be used in some way to identity her as inferior to man, then there would remain a signature of that fact for the purpose of substantiation. Yet, of course, no proof of this is offered because no proof through scientific method can be attained. However, it can be clearly demonstrated that all living creatures are composed of the same fundamental building blocks of life.

Traditional views of the SBC claims the author of these stories was Moses (Smith 1997), yet Moses was not present at the time of Adam and Eve, and therefore, it would not be impossible for him to know anything of the process of creation. If Moses wrote this account, then it had to be communicated to him three thousand years later. In addition, it should be considered that nowhere in the book of Genesis does it suggest an author nor does Moses claim at any time to have written the story of creation. It is undeniable the book of Genesis is anonymous, and arguments from Jewish or Christian tradition is not strong enough overthrow that demonstrable fact. Southern Baptists reject the documentary hypothesis (the Pentateuch being a compilation of independent sources known as the Yawist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly), in favor of Mosaic authorship. In 1969 a commentary was written for the SBC ( _The Broadman Bible Commentary, volume 1 Genesis)_ that endorsed the documentary hypothesis. It was written by the British Baptist and Old Testament scholar G. Henton Davis. This commentary was removed from circulation and was replaced by a second commentary without support of the documentary hypothesis (Baptist History and Heritage. 2003).

It has to be accepted that any book that does not supply the name of the author is by definition anonymous. This fact cannot be dismissed by tradition, faith or any other method of categorically insisting on an author when no author is contained within the book itself. With no established author, it is therefore very difficult to establish veracity of content due to the fact we do not know the prejudices and the motives of the writer. In other words, the reader is forced into the position of reading the creation account as factual and true because it is supposed to be the literal word of God as transcribed to someone at a date and place unknown. With that vague knowledge, biblical literalists make their claim of male superiority, claiming to be first in creation, made in the image of God and created of special material. In addition, based on this same vague material, some women are willing to believe that they are somehow less than men. This is very poor evidence for demanding the subordination of half the human race to the other half based on gender.

It can positively be said that the story of creation in Genesis is not uncommon. Most prescientific societies devised stories of their beginnings. Prior to an understanding of science and evolutional biology, it is completely reasonable for any society, especially a religious society, to create a story that describes their special place in the known world. Also, it is necessary for these stories to reflect the opinions of their author(s) and the culture from which they come. All material written within a given culture is written with a view of being accepted within that culture. Otherwise it never would have survived. When we look at the creation narrative we are getting a picture of a worldview thousands of years ago. The elements within the Book of Genesis that are positive and life affirming for both man and woman are those elements that have the ability to transcend the ages. The elements that are demeaning and destructive are a poor representation of Judaism or Christianity. Those elements can never be transcultural and must be only understood in light of a culture that has faded into the long ago past.

Sue Monk Kidd, author of _The Secret Life of Bees,_ was raised as a Southern Baptist, and she tells a story of her first encounter of the term describing a woman as "first to sin, second in creation:"

Being female had always seemed vaguely limiting, confining, lacking in power, second class. As I tried to understand why, I found myself thinking about Eve. Some words played in my head, the old litany about women I'd heard in church: "second in creation and first to sin." Some years before, the Southern Baptist denominations had passed a resolution saying that women should not have a place of authority over men in church because of this... As I brooded over this, I remembered the first time I'd heard the words _first to sin second in creation..._ It was a Sunday morning and I was around 12. I sat in church in my childhood Georgia. We were listening to a visiting preacher give a sermon on the "God ordained family." The preacher had a portable chalkboard beside the pulpit, and on it he diagrammed the family for us. He wrote _God_ at the top, then in a descending chain of command he wrote _husband, wife, children._ I remembered the downward-pointing arrows he drew between each word, showing us the line of authority. When he got to the part about why wives were below husbands, I was on the edge of my pew. "Woman was the first to sin and the second to be created," he said. Then he went on to talk about Eve, how she was created for man's benefit, that she was unworthy because she disobeyed God and offered Adam the forbidden fruit. (Kidd 1995, 26-27).

Kidd, in her biography _The Dissident Dance of the Dissident Daughter_ tells how her understanding of the place of a woman in the hierarchy of God, as described by her denomination (SBC), shaped, defined and limited her growth as a woman. Her epiphany came when she saw that the same male-dominated understanding of the role of women had been passed down to her daughter. All biblical material that has come to be interpreted in a way that it is oppressive to others cannot be a correct interpretation. If it is a correct interpretation, then the persecuted group will be correct in rejecting any such religion, church, scripture, or even the God that imposes such oppression.

The claim that man was created first and therefore holds special status can be challenged on the grounds that the creation story itself never implies any sort of hierarchy. If a hierarchy is assumed, then it cannot rest on the idea that what is created first has priority over what is subsequently created. This is the idea used to malign woman by saying she is "second in creation" and thereby second in degree. If this be the case, then it must also be true that since darkness was created before light, the darkness is greater than light; the flora was created before fauna and thereby has priority; and all were created before man making him the lowest in the dominion of animals and plants. If, as it has been suggested among feminist theologians, woman was created last then she is the crown of creation, not man (Ruether 2012, 108).

"First to sin," is the supposed curse that has led to the justification of abuse and subornation of women within the SBC. Tertullian writing concerning women in _De Cultu Feminarum_ (On female fashion) declares an opinion that was common among the Church Fathers:

The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. _"You_ are the devil's gateway: _you_ are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: _you_ are the first deserter of the divine law: _you_ are she who persuaded him (Adam) whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. _You_ destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of _your_ desert, that is, death-even the Son of God had to die. (Tertullian 202 CE, Book 1, 14).

Here the opinion is that all the evil in the world, including the death of Jesus according to Tertullian, was because of woman. In addition, this evil curse on woman has not been set aside but continues to this very day. Woman is considered by the SBC to be weak-willed, given to temptation, and a temptress. This places the entire blame of the fall of the human race directly on the shoulders of women, and she alone bears the shame and burden of being the author of untold human suffering. For this disobedience, she is cursed just as Ham would be cursed after her. Eve is cursed to have sorrow in childbirth and to be a slave to her husband for he is to rule over her.

Since the two creation stories found in the book of Genesis are used as authoritative sources for the subjection of women to the headship of the man, then we must wonder if these stories are to be taken literally or if they belong in the corpus of creation myths that are found in all ancient cultures, as claimed by Charles Long in his book, Alpha: The Myths of Creation. If these creation narratives in the Bible are to be taken literally, then a woman is faced with the option of concurring with those who claim her role in life to be that of a subservient helpmate to man due to the hereditary stain of Eve. Or she can reject this story as having no authority over her or her daughters. The former will result is the absorption of her identity into her male counterpart; the latter will allow her to develop her full capacity. It might be noted that the decision to accept the subservient role as a woman based on a literal, authoritative reading of these creation stories is not made in a vacuum; this decision will be transferred to daughters and sons. The roles of dominance/submission will continue from generation to generation. Before one gives in to the absolute authority of the Bible in matters that carry such great consequences, it is worth considering the words of Isaac Asimov in his book, _In the Beginning...Science Faces God in the Book of Genesis_ :

Whatever the authority of the Bible, there has never been a time in history when more than a minority of the human species has accepted that authority. And even among those who have accepted the authority, differences in interpretation have been many and violent, and on every possible point, no one interpretation has ever won out over all others. (Asimov 1981, 8).

The SBC would have people believe that all people have recognized the Bible for all time, but in reality it has always been a small minority that accepts the Bible as the unchallenged, inerrant Word of God. It is a personal matter, and when it becomes a matter that causes more harm than good, then it must be evaluated in such light. Today there are sixteen million Southern Baptists insisting that according to the divine will of God, women are to be subordinate to men and must obey their husbands. This is a force that is corrosive to society and affects millions. It is not only a religious matter but also a serious social concern.

Is the story of two people named Adam and Eve a literal or literary account and how did Jesus view this ancient narrative? In Matthew 19:3-6, we find Jesus saying:

Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?' He answered, 'Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female." (Matthew 19:

3-6).

The argument that is advanced by the SBC is that Jesus accepted the story of Adam and Eve; therefore, it must be factual. However, Jesus often reflected the beliefs of His culture. For example, His statement that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds (Matthew 13:31-32) was made in light of the fact that this is what people believed. In fact, there are seeds that are so small they are like dust, much smaller than a mustard seed. Jesus would have reflected the beliefs of his era, as it was not the purpose of His coming to correct false scientific notions. He did not come to tell the world that the earth is not flat or that their creation stories were a myth. Even SBC fundamentalists believe that Jesus came to reconcile the world to God the Father though His sacrificial death and not to set right all erroneous opinions about the world. An example might be made by pointing out Jesus never spoke about the microbiological world or germ theory even though He would have known of these things. For Him to reflect their own understanding of their origins would not be unexpected. However, it is very clear in His teachings in the Sermon on the Mount that their religion cannot be based upon oppression and that all are to love their neighbor as themselves. Jesus was clear He would not endorse oppressive doctrines that were accepted and practiced in the first century.

When we turn to science we find that it is not possible for all humanity to descend from two single parents six thousand years ago. Prior to the ability to demonstrate the unlikelihood of all humanity coming into existence by two parents through genetics, it was a matter of faith. Today, it is a different story. According to Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D., Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago:

The scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they're portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of "bottlenecks" (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000- 15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That's as small a population as our ancestors had, and note it's not two individuals. Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times, as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any "Adam" and "Eve" (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes "coalesces" back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived. These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus's virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty. (Coyne 2009).

The point is that Adam and Eve, from a scientific view, could never have existed as proto-parents. If it is to be believed that all truth is of God, then it must be accepted that Adam and Eve were more literary than literal. Therefore, any argument for the subornation of women that are based on the creation stories found in the book of Genesis are unsustainable and must be abandoned. This must be the case as the Bible is frozen in time and is no longer open to additional material. It is a closed canon according to evangelical Christianity, and therefore, under current understanding of a literal interpretation, woman would be doomed to being subservient to man forever. On the other hand, as it was pointed out by Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Sagan 1980, Charlie Rose Interview). We must ask if this extraordinary claim that all women are inferior to all men based on an ancient text of unknown origins passes the test of providing evidence of any kind, much less extraordinary evidence. The answer to that question is, of course, no. Believing in a literal interpretation of the story of proto parents may seem harmless, but when it is used as a divinely authorized tool for the purpose of committing half the human race into a state of bondage, it causes great harm.

Phyllis Trible in her book, _Texts of Terror:_ Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives tells of the lives of the women under the oppressive control of men. Hagar the slave (Gen. 16-1-16; 21:9-2), Lot's daughters (Gen. 19:1-38) Lot's wife (Gen. 19:23-26), Tamar the raped princess (II Sam. 13:1-22), Jephthah's daughter (Judg. 11:29-40), and the unnamed concubine (Judg. 19:1-30) are all terrible stories of women who are robbed of their identities, and sometimes their lives. Each one of these stories would be considered tragic, unjust and a violation of basic human decency were it not the fact they are in the Bible and somehow become excusable and acceptable. Those who hold a literal, inerrant view of the Bible can only conclude that women are inferior to men and it is acceptable to treat them as such. Jepththah burned his daughter alive, and for this he is to be considered to be a man of great faith, according to fundamentalist tradition, in that he kept his vow to God (Judg. 19:1-30; Heb. 11:32).

Women did not fare well in the Old Testament, but one would assume with the teaching of Jesus, this would all come to an end and women would be elevated to their rightful place. However, there are also several passages found in the New Testament that are often quoted as proof that woman will always be subordinate to man as authorized by God. These verses are found in I Corinthians 7:4; 11:1-16; 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, I Timothy 2:11-15; Titus 2:3-5 and I Peter 3:1-7. For those who accept the subornation of women this represents a preponderance of evidence. However, this is not evidence for the support of male dominion but evidence of the writers of the Bible reflecting the culture in which they lived. When we examine these verses, we must keep in mind that Paul and Peter are first century interpreters trying to interpret Jesus for the world and culture in which they are a part. The challenge for modern interpreters is to determine what is cultural and what is transcultural. For the biblical literalist, all the teachings of Paul and Peter are treated as transcultural and universal.

There was no other church that gave Paul greater headaches than the church located in the city of Corinth. We know Paul wrote at least three letters to this church of which we have two, I Corinthians and II Corinthians. In I Corinthians 11:3-12, we find Paul addressing a number of issues concerning the women in the church:

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. (I Cor. 11:3-12).

This passage is a favorite of those who wish to subordinate women as it specifically says, "Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ." This seems to settle the argument. However, little is mentioned of the fact that in a literal approach to this passage we see God as the head of Christ, which dismantles the doctrine of the Trinity. The Southern Baptist position on the Trinity is, "The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being" ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ). It is not possible for the Son to be subordinate to the Father and still be God the Son.

This passage also claims that man is the "image and reflection of God" while woman is the "image and reflection of man," and that woman was made for the "sake of man." These verses are often never mentioned due to the fact they claim woman is not made in the image of God. Yet, what is retained, and often mentioned, is the headship of the man. Again, this demonstrates that all literalism is selective. While most literalists point out the headship of man is part of the divine order, they nevertheless ignore the verses that state a woman is never to cut her hair as a symbol of authority "for the sake of the angels" and that a woman is not made in the image of God.

Here we return to the writing of John Rice. His book, _Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers,_ published in 1941, may be considered out of date, but it embodies the literalist position. Concerning long hair, Rice writes:

But on the matter of bobbed hair (short hair), the Bible is so clear that nothing is left to a woman's judgment as to whether she should have bobbed hair or long hair. The Bible expressly teaches that a woman should have long hair...Men wear short hair as a sign that they take their responsibilities as made in the image of God and as rulers over their households. Women are to wear long hair as symbols of their submission to husband and father, taking their place with meekness as women surrendered to the will of God and subject to the will of God and subject to the authority God places over them. (Rice 1941, 67, 71).

In regards to what Paul was referring to when he writes that a woman is to have long hair "for the sake of the angels" Rice claims:

For the sake of angels who hover near always, Christian women should especially be careful to have long hair, "because of the angels," the scripture says. How are angels concerned about a woman's hair? I think that not only would angels be grieved by this mark of rebellion against husbands or father and against God, but angels would be tempted, likewise, to rebel. (Rice 1941, 72-73).

This is what a literalist picture looks like without the selective process. If the selective elements are removed from a literalist reading of the Bible, it greatly deforms the intent of the Scriptures and would be rejected by many within the SBC. In order for the Bible to be used for the purpose maintaining male headship, selective interpretations must be a component of their hermeneutic.

We do not know what problems Paul was addressing in the Corinthian Church when he wrote these letters. Many speculative suggestions have been offered but in the end no one knows for certain. But instead of acknowledging this lack of knowledge, there are some who choose to use this passage as a proof to keep women in their place, a place of subordination. This passage must always be placed in its cultural context and in doing so it becomes possible to fully understand and appreciate the difficulties Paul had in bring order to these small, struggling churches.

In I Corinthians 7:4, we find a passage that has had dire consequences for women for centuries and has consigned women to poverty, sickness and death. It is in this passage we find the statement, "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does" (I Cor. 7:4). Death in childbirth, sickness in overcrowded homes and poverty are all a result of a woman losing control of her reproductive rights. No man ever died giving birth. It is an unequal contract for a woman to surrender authority of her body to a man even if the man surrenders his body to her. The fact that a woman has authority over the man's body may have meant something in the first century, but it means nothing in modern society. In the first century, a woman may have used this teaching in order to fulfill her purpose as a woman, and that was to give birth to a male heir. In the first century, a woman had to compete for sexual favors from her husband against house slaves or even other wives and Paul asserts she has a right to her husband as a sexual partner. Today, a woman is not forced into finding her purpose in life through bearing a male heir. A woman's body must remain her own; otherwise, she cannot use it to serve God, as a man uses his. Again, in this passage we see Paul addressing issues within the Corinthian Church that is unknown to the contemporary reader and is wholly cultural and specific.

The idea that a woman's body is not her own but belongs to her husband/lord/master is the same argument used by the same people using the same book to enslave Africans to white men in early American history. It is difficult to conceive we can use the same regrettable principles of biblical interpretation that afforded grave results the first time (human slavery) and to expect different results when applied to women. If Christianity is presented to women with the caveat they have to become subservient to their husbands, and surrender their bodies including reproductive rights to their male partner, then the woman has the full right to reject Christianity based on such an unacceptable proposition. When a woman adopts a religion that demands a hierarchical male structure she not only loses her independence, but she also models to her children a destructive, dehumanizing lifestyle. It is important to note that it does not matter if her husband is a good man or a bad man or if he is even a Christian, he remains the head of the home. The verses quoted always refer to a woman being subject to her husband without any qualifications. Again, John Rice is clear on this matter:

God wants children to obey their parents even if their parents are wicked. Servants should obey their masters even if they are sometimes unkind. Citizens should obey the laws of their country even though they be administered by wicked and corrupt men. Likewise, God expects women to feel it their duty to obey their husbands, good or bad, saved or unsaved. (Rice 1941, 19-20).

In addition, a woman becomes responsible for the salvation of her husband:

Many a woman has wept and prayed many years hoping that her husband would be saved. Yet rebellion in her heart against her husband _and_ (italics mine) against God's authority through her husband has blocked the answer to her prayers! The way for a woman to win her unsaved husband is to be subject to him...after all, the very heart of sin is rebellion against authority. (Rice 1941, 30-31).

It does not matter what a husband requests of his wife, he must always be obeyed, and failure to do so is rebellion against God. The fact that a woman's husband remains non-Christian is because the woman's prayer remained blocked because of her refusal to obey her husband. A woman is responsible for her husband's salvation, and it is only a matter of coming under his authority even though he does not profess Christianity. It is odd to consider that a wife is burdened with the responsibility of the soul of her husband when she has no authority over him. As free moral agents, one would think we are responsible for our own spiritual condition, and it is not determined on the behavior of another. This idea seems to weaken the power of Jesus's death on the Cross as somehow being inadequate and needs the total submission of a woman to her male counterpart in order to be made complete.

In I Corinthians 14:34-35, biblical literalism runs into an embarrassing problem. This passage unequivocally states that women are not allowed to speak in a religious assembly:

Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (I Cor. 14:34-35).

It is very clear that a woman is forbidden to speak in any church (the word church is in the plural form) and they are not allowed to ask the minister anything. If she does not understand, she must wait until they arrive home and then ask the husband for his opinion. To add extra weight to this position, Paul calls upon the authority of Moses to settle the matter. This passage is used to insure there are no women preachers but is never used, it seems, against women singing in the choir or praying audibly in a church service where men are present.

In 2010, former President Jimmy Carter severed his ties with the SBC over the issues of male domination within the SBC. A letter that he made public made the following statements:

I have been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God. This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities. It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. (Carter 2009, Women's Press).

It was a great embarrassment for the former President of the United States to publically condemn the SBC over its treatment of women and to leave the SBC after sixty years. However, the SBC simply does not have a history of retracting earlier statements and admitting they were incorrect. Obviously, a transcultural literal translation of I Corinthians 14:34-35 is absurd and practiced by few SBC churches in its entirety. Women do speak aloud in SBC churches giving evidence that selective literalism is the practice of many Southern Baptists churches.

If choosing a literal interpretation of these verses in the Old and New Testaments, then it should be made clear that this is the accepted practice to potential new members. Women should be notified in advance that if they would like to become a participating member, they are to remain silent in church and if they have a question they are never to ask the pastor but to ask their husband when at home. This must be done as has been taught by Paul, and he is the final arbitrator of what constitutes Christianity. If all this inaccuracy was disclosed at the door to all inquirers of Christianity, any rational minded person would seek knowledge of God elsewhere. Only when one wishes to worship in a congregation in which both the people and the pastor prefer a literal interpretation of the Bible are such doctrines are deemed to be acceptable.

Another favorite verse used to justify the subornation of women is Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord," (Eph. 5:22). It might be noted the language here is similar to the language used in Ephesian 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ" (Eph. 6:5) and I Peter 2:18 "Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh" (I Pet. 2:18). These similarities underscore the fact that Paul is writing within the context of his culture and not establish inerrant doctrine for a church in the future. The reason why the Bible, from beginning to end, dramatically calls for the subjection of women to men and slaves to their master is because the Bible was written at an age when male dominance and slavery was the accepted norm. Literature always is a slave to the culture that produces it otherwise no would understand it.

Colossians 3:18 is another verse insisting that a woman submit herself to her husband, "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord" (Col. 3:18). When these verses are quoted one after another, it seems as if Paul is adamant that women be under the authority of her husband. Again, if that is the case, then it must be presented as such in its entirety without apology or amendment of any kind and be disclosed to all women entering into the faith and entering into marriage. However, the preponderance of these passages provide evidence that Paul, like all others, writes in complete harmony with the culture from which he is immersed. Therefore, the flaw is not what Paul is writing about women; what he wrote is in synch with his first century Roman-Greco culture. The problem results when modern religious authorities try to bring these same first century teachings into modern society. This strange way of giving undue weight to antiquity seems to be limited to theology. Thankfully, science, medicine, philosophy, and other disciplines do not attribute special qualities to the past nor freeze any point in past history to be sacrosanct, unquestionable, and immutable. Science, unlike fundamentalist theology, improves by submitting itself to the practice of falsification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008). It is through the testing of ideas and building on prior knowledge, that science advances and by doing so, offers much to humanity. A literal approach to interpretation deprives itself of this process, arguing that the Bible is a finished work with no improvement required or solicited. If Paul says a woman is to be silent in church and to subject herself to the authority of her husband as to the Lord, then that is the final word.

Another proof text (the practice of using an isolated text to prove a claim) is found in I Timothy 2:11-15:

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (I Tim. 2:11-15).

It is peculiar that the noise a woman makes in a religious setting is considered offensive to men in first century Christianity. She is not allowed to ask questions of her male teacher. A woman is not allowed to teach a man, or to have authority over a man. The reason cited is that Adam was formed first then Eve. In addition, it was woman who was deceived and became the transgressor. This implies the innocence of man and the weakness of Eve. This weakness and guilt is borne by all women according to the literalists. One of the first questions to ask of this passage is why modern interpreters of the Bible accept Paul's statement, "I permit no woman" as authoritative for all churches for all time. He never suggests he is speaking for God on this matter for all time and to all churches, but it is clear this is his view on the matter for this specific situation and this specific time. Certainly, there were those at that time that disagreed with him on the role of women as there are today who disagree with him. Paul believed, in this instance, that woman was the root of the problem. It was Eve who was second in creation and first to sin. Therefore, she has no place in the church. As a minimum, it must be considered that Paul was wrong on this matter. Women can and do have authority over men in every field of modern life without destructive consequences. According to biblical literalism, when a female police officer becomes a Christian, she must resign her position because she has authority over male malefactors. If a woman becomes a judge, officer in the military, or head of a corporation, she must immediately resign her position upon becoming a Christian. A woman who is a professor in our universities must immediately resign upon becoming a believer because Paul has said, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man." As John Rice puts it, "A woman's place was to be taught, not to teach. A woman's place was to be silent, not to be a public speaker, a woman's place was to be in subjection and not be in authority" (Rice 1941, 43).

Paul writing to Timothy says a woman "will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty" (I Tim. 2:15). A woman is saved through childbearing, yet a man is saved through an entirely different process, from a literal reading of this verse. A woman's salvation, in this passage, is predicated upon having children at the whim of her husband at a time when giving birth to children was a life threatening experience. It might be added, as previously stated, no man ever died giving birth to a child, but millions of women have. This passage, as a minimum, when imposed as a literal/absolutist interpretation, is chauvinistic, even misogynistic.

In defense of Paul, he did what every generation of biblical interpreters should do: interpret the Good News of the Kingdom of God to a specific generation and culture. All biblical interpreters are immersed in their culture, as well they should be. However, at no time should the Gospel be frozen in any one culture and at any point in time and make that a template for all others to follow. By comparison, the Constitution of the United States is a document that, in theory, could freeze American society in an age that has long passed into history, not unlike the way the Bible has been used to freeze in place the male hierarchical society of centuries past. The difference is that the Supreme Court is constantly reinterpreting the Constitution in order to make it useful and relevant to modern society. The Church has no Supreme Court to attend to this task, and therefore, it is easy for biblical literalists to force modern society into an ancient model based on the accepted authority that the Bible is the Word of God.

The SBC endorsement of literalism and absolutism attracts the accusation they are anti-female. The Southern Baptist interpretation of the writings of the Old and New Testaments holds that a woman is to keep silent and have no authority over men, and her salvation lies in her ability to bear children. All this came about as punishment for being deceived by the devil in the Garden and becoming a transgressor. Further, Eve's malediction has been passed down to all women, all carrying Eve's curse. All women are guilty of Eve's transgression, and therefore, they are forever cursed to do the bidding of man and can never rise higher than that of helpmate, an assistant to man. In frustration Lucretia Mott (1793-1880) wrote, "In fact, clergymen were among the most vociferous antagonists that women faced. Every scrap of biblical evidence, especially St. Paul, that they could marshal in favor of male superiority was advanced in convention debates by them" (Schneir 1992, 100). It is a wonder that women would ever consider the Christian religion as a place for finding meaning in their lives.

Paul, in his epistle to Titus writes:

Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited. (Titus 2:3-5).

Paul instructs Titus of the necessity of being a parent to the females in his congregation. The role of Titus is to "tell" women how to behave, and that includes instructing that they should not be slanderous, not drink too much, love their husband and children, be self-controlled, virginal, manage the house well, be kind and, of course, be submissive to her male counterpart. This paternalism is not extended over the men. It is the women that are weak and in need of parenting. It seems in the writing of Paul that women were always slanderous, trouble, spoke too often, were disruptive in church services, and were in constant need of being reminded of their "place." Perhaps there is merit in the idea that Jesus brought freedom to women that were so revolutionary that many women became disruptive, but that is no excuse to deprive them of that freedom. In first century, male dominated society, an outspoken woman may have been a disturbance, but that is no longer the case today. A woman should be able to celebrate her freedom in Christ to the same degree as a man.

I Peter 3:1-4 is a passage written by Paul that is used to the great detriment of women, but also it can be used to understand the folly of literalism and fundamentalism:

Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight. (I Pet. 3:1-4).

It is certainly odd to think of a modern Western religion that does not allow women to cut their hair, speak in meetings, teach or have authority over men, but instead, demands that women surrender their bodies to their male counterpart, obey the orders of her husband as to the Lord, wear no jewelry, braid her hair, never ask questions of a minister, never seek ordination, and never acknowledge a call into any ministry that would involve authority and yet that is the case for biblical literalists.

Peter, like Paul, makes no claim of being the mouthpiece of God, nor does he claim his letter to be inerrant and authoritative for all churches for all time. However, biblical literalists have made such claims to the great detriment of women. These prohibitions of female dress and accouterments is widely ignored and not enforced in the majority of Southern Baptist churches. While holding to portions of this passage as being transcultural, other portions such as braiding hair, jewelry, fine clothing, are to be considered cultural and therefore no longer apply. This exposes the weakness of the idea that God demands female subornation. A literal/absolute understanding of the Bible as espoused by the SBC, must accept all the teachings of Paul, not just the passages that are to be tolerated by church members at a given time in history.

This verse in Peter is used as one of the proofs to establish a subservient role for women in the home according to the SBC and as stated in section XVIII of the _Baptist Faith and Message_ :

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. ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ , Section XVIII)

Even though this passage is used to teach female subornation, no mention is made about how a woman is to dress or that she is somehow responsible for her husband's soul. The point being, all literalism is selective, and this process of selecting seems always to empower one group (white over black, male over female, straight over gay) and disempower another group.

Richard Land, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (SBC) in a response to President Jimmy Carter's announcement he was leaving the SBC over its stance on women, states:

We have a choice. We can either follow the spirit of the age and follow syncretizers [sic] and compromisers like Jimmy Carter or we can follow the Apostle Paul. And we'd rather have the approval of God and the Apostle Paul than Jimmy Carter. (Trull, 2005).

Land expresses a view that those who adopt the literal reading of Paul are superior to those who do not. John Rice states in _Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers,_ that "there is a divine order among Christians...Paul followed Christ and other Christians should follow Paul" (Rice 1941, 11). Rice bases his claim on Paul's statement in I Corinthians 11:1 as found in the King James Version, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." A better rendering of that verse is in the New Revised Standard Version: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." Rice's claim that we are followers of Paul would make Paul's teachings seem to supersede the teachings of Jesus. Whatever Paul is saying, we can be sure he is not telling all Christians to begin to follow him and not Jesus.

In contrast to the idea of following Paul, Peter or anyone else, Jesus clearly on numerous occasions said to follow Him (Matt. 10:38; Luke 14:27; John 21:19-22). The Apostle Peter wrote, "For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps" (I Pet. 2:21). Christians are to follow Jesus and Him alone. The problem is that Jesus never said that a woman is to obey her husband, or that she is never to cut her hair, never to wear jewelry or fine clothing, to be silent in church, never to speak in a pulpit, pastor a church, or that she must surrender her body to her husband. These instructions were from Paul and Peter and never from Jesus. Nevertheless, those within the SBC use the writings of Paul and Peter to promote the idea that it is the will of God that all women remain in subjection to all men for all time.

Jack Schaap, the pastor of one of America's largest Baptist churches with over 20,000 in attendance every week, does not shy away from the idea of female subordination, and he is clear on the biblical arguments in favor of this position. Schaap in a recorded sermon in 2011, says the following regarding women:

Somebody the other day asked me, this reporter, he said, um, "I heard that...it'd be a cold day in hell before you get your theology from a woman. Don't you think that's kind of demeaning to the genders?" I said, "Ask Adam what he thinks about getting his theology from a woman. I said it damned the whole world. I said the reason your soul, sorry soul's going to hell is because a woman told Adam what God thinks about things...I wouldn't get my theology from a woman. I don't mind if mama teaches the kids. I don't mind if a strong lady, and a wise woman, and a gracious godly woman follows the, uh, takes the lesson from the pastor – Hey y'all, you listen to me right now, I still believe, it'll be a cold day in hell before I get my theology from a woman. I'm a preacher. I wasn't mama-called, papa-sent. No woman ever got me involved in ministry, I didn't follow a woman into ministry. A woman didn't write this book, not one woman wrote the scriptures right here. [banging his Bible on the lectern] A man wrote the Bible, got it from God, a man hung on the cross, his name is Jesus Christ, and God called a man to lead the church here – [shouting] Hey! I'm glad I'm a man!...I'm the messenger of the church and what I say is more important than what the news reporter thinks I oughta say. God didn't call him to tell me what to do, and God didn't call anybody else, either. You know, if that's arrogant, so be it. (Schaap 2011).

This is a picture of what it looks like when the Bible in its entirety is used against women. Southern Baptists are very selective in what parts of the Bible they wish to enforce; yet it is through people like Jack Schaap we get a clearer picture of what damage can be caused if literalism is not selective. Jack Schaap's church, First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, is home to the Hyles-Anderson College. This school trains thousands of pastors, missionaries, and Christian educators to go into the world with same doctrines that insist on the subornation of women. The idea of the subornation of women to their male counterparts based on biblical teachings is spreading far beyond the SBC thanks to such documents as the Danvers Statement and will result in a malformed view of Christianity, and if successful, it will retard civilization in depriving us of the talents of over half of our population. It is of little surprise that Jack Schaap was recently arrested for transporting a female minor across State line for the purpose of sex; he has pleaded guilty and received a ten year sentence. This gives evidence that those who subscribe to a literalist view of the Bible as it pertains to men being dominant and women being subordinate has consequences that extend beyond the man woman relationship. Research shows that "The assault rate on children of parents who subscribe to the belief of male dominance is 136 percent higher than for couples not committed to male dominance" (Blaker 2003, 49). Additionally, "...fathers who molest their daughters generally see women and children as their property" (Blaker 2003, 56). The evidence of the harm done to women, and their children raised in their homes, where male dominance is taught is overwhelming. The idea of ownership, property, ordering, obeying are the same words that were applied to the God given right to own slaves according to the Baptists in the South in the 19th century. This produced catastrophic effects of which many feel the results of to this very day.

It seems it is always the woman's fault. It was her fault Adam sinned, the world was plunged into darkness of pain and woe, her fault Jesus had to die, her fault her lost husband will burn in hell, her fault the church is in confusion, her fault the home is in disarray, her fault America is in ruins. A rational woman confident in herself and her relationship with God would rightfully reject such ideas and those who advocate them. Hopefully, someday all women will reject those who believe and teach such things, and then we shall see a shift in those oppressive theologies.

In conclusion, we must ask whether the Bible is an evil book filled with passages that condone slavery and teach the inferiority of women. Since the founding of the SBC, it has used a literalist approach to interpreting the Bible that has continued to damage women. It is difficult to change this course due to the fact that along with this literalism is the belief the Bible is without error and absolute in all matters. This approach to the Bible has created a situation that makes it nearly impossible to reform. Regardless of all the damage that has been done in the past, however, it seems this hermeneutic will not be abandoned by the SBC until they themselves are rejected as a legitimate representation of the Christian faith.

PART IV

The Southern Baptist Convention and its use of Biblical Absolutism to Persecute Homosexuals

Chapter 8

The Southern Baptist Position on Homosexuality

God's going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if he does not do something in confronting Dallas and San Francisco and the gay-lesbian communities of our great nation.

—W.A. Criswell

Dr. W. A. Criswell, pastor of the first mega-church in the United States and the most influential Southern Baptist preacher of the 20th century (New York Times Archive, 2002), spoke the words above in a sermon on August 9, 1992, and they have been repeated many times by other pastors over the years since then. There seems to be a no more agreed upon topic than a hatred for homosexuality and homosexuals among Southern Baptists. There is not a single topic that cements Southern Baptists together more than the agreement that homosexuality is a terrible abomination that must be eradicated before God's judgment rains down up on Western civilization.

Southern Baptists have clearly indicated, by the passing of over 40 resolutions that homosexuality is their greatest threat. Sexuality, to the Southern Baptist Convention, is something that must be limited to heterosexual expression. The failure of Southern Baptist churches to force lesbian and gay individuals back into obscurity is to fail God and country. Every pastor is expected to play his part in openly condemning all homosexuals, and if he fails in this duty or if he speaks favorably of homosexuals, he is not allow to represent his church at the Annual Convention, per article III section 1 of the SBC Constitution:

Article III. Membership:

The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of missionary Baptist churches cooperating with the Convention as follows: One (1) messenger from each church which: (1) Is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work. Among churches not in cooperation with the Convention are churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. (SBC Constitution 2006).

The term "homosexual agenda" is heard often heard among Southern Baptists and it is this "agenda" that gives justification to an open war-like approach in dealing with homosexuality in America. It is unclear as to what this agenda is, but it seems to satisfy Southern Baptists that it exists. Speaking of homosexuality, W.A. Criswell says,

Such is the depravity of human nature that unless it is restrained by the strong hand of a strong government, it subverts the whole nation and destroys the whole fabric of a city. We are commanded to love God. We are commanded to obey the king." (Criswell, Tragedy of These Times, 1960).

We see this same theme reflected in many of the resolutions adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention at their Annual Meetings. As revealed within these resolutions, one finds the belief that homosexuals have a plan, a "homosexual agenda," to subvert the plan of God for America, destroy the institution of marriage, infiltrate the church, take over the schools, and brainwash children through use of sex education and through popular media.

In New Orleans, Louisiana, the following resolution was adopted in 1996, and within this resolution we find many of the elements that declare homosexuality a threat that must be opposed. The foundation of this argument is rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible that favors heterosexuality as the only acceptable of sexual expression accepted by God:

Resolution On Homosexual Marriage

BE IT RESOLVED, That we, the messengers of the one hundred thirty-ninth meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, assembled in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 11-13, 1996, do clearly and steadfastly oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage by the state of Hawaii, or by any other state, or by the United States of America; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm the Bible's teaching that promotion of homosexual conduct and relationships by any society, including action by the governments to sanction and legitimize homosexual relationships by the legalization of homosexual marriages, is an abominable sin calling for God's swift judgment upon any such society (Lev. 18:22, 28; Isa. 3:9); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to pray faithfully against the legalization of homosexual marriages in American law, and to preach and teach the truth concerning what the Bible says about homosexuality, homosexual conduct and the institution of marriage, and against the foolishness, danger and moral wickedness of any government action to accept, sanction, approve, protect, or promote homosexual marriage; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to pray for, affirm, and support legislative and legal efforts and all persons involved in efforts to oppose the legalization of homosexual marriages through judicial actions, through public policy decisions and through legislation introduced at both the state and federal levels of government; and we call upon all judges, all persons in public office, and all candidates for public office, to do all they can to resist and oppose the legalization of homosexual marriages; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, That because any law, or any policy or regulation supporting a law, that legalizes homosexual marriage is and must be completely and thoroughly wicked according to God's standards revealed in the Bible, we do most solemnly pledge our decision never to recognize the moral legitimacy of any such law, policy or regulation, and we affirm that, whatever the stakes (Dan. 3:17- 18), we will never conform to or obey (Acts 4:19) anything required by any governing body to implement, impose or act upon any such law. So help us God.

(Resolution On Homosexual Marriage 1996)

The above resolution is in reaction to Hawaii considering allowing gay marriage in their State, and the SBC was fearful that if this occurs, the other forty-nine states would be forced to accept Lesbian and Gay marriages performed in Hawaii. This resolution makes the claim that "homosexual couples from every other state are preparing to obtain marriage licenses in Hawaii and then to challenge the courts, legislatures and institutions in their home states to treat their same-sex relationship as having identical status to the recognition of marriage between a man and a woman." It does not say, "might," or "may," it says they "are" preparing to travel to Hawaii to obtain marriage licenses with the implication they will return to the mainland and insist their marriage be recognized as valid. In the eyes of the SBC, homosexuals cannot be married for the institution of marriage is a religious institution ordained by God; and therefore, it could never include homosexual marriage.

This resolution goes on to state that this "is a strategy to appropriate the moral capital of marriage in order to enforce acceptance of homosexual conduct and homosexual desires in the public arenas of American life." It is seen as a part of the homosexual agenda to force homosexual conduct and desires upon American culture. It is important that Southern Baptists always put the homosexual agenda in oblique terms of an imminent threat to family and country. They never define specifically what this homosexual agenda might be, but they want everyone to know it exists. And it is a threat to all Godly people.

Up to this point in this resolution there is an absence of biblical authority, which is odd for Southern Baptists because they almost always quote a verse for every action or non-action. However, instead of using the Bible to back up their claim that the homosexual agenda is a threat to home and nation, they turn to science:

There is much scientific evidence showing that homosexual attractions are pathological, abnormal, and mostly if not entirely a matter of external influence, learned behavior, acquired taste and personal choice; and, although there have been speculations, no conclusive scientific evidence has been found to support claims that homosexual attractions are biologically fixed and irreversible; and Even should a biological link with homosexuality be discovered, it could not settle the morality of homosexual behavior, and could not serve to justify, much less require, any society to grant the status of marriage to homosexual couples.

(Resolution On Homosexual Marriage 1996).

This passage states that homosexuality is "pathological," meaning it is a form of mental illness, a sickness of the mind. W.A. Criswell, in his sermon entitled, "The Tragedy of Those Times," delivered on May 5, 1960, states:

It's a disease and it spreads. I've asked doctors about it. Many, many, many doctors, about it and every doctor tells me, no man is ever born that way; never. Every doctor I have ever talked to has told me it is not congenital. You're not born with it. It's a thing that grows. And it spreads. (Criswell, The Tragedy of Those Times _,_ 1960).

Despite lack of any evidence of homosexuality being a mental disease, or the result of any pathological condition, it is still maintained by the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists today that homosexuality is mental deviation. It might be pointed out this resolution includes a statement saying that if proof of a biological foundation for homosexuality is discovered, it will have no effect among Southern Baptists because the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin; therefore, scientific evidence is incorrect:

Even should a biological link with homosexuality be discovered, it could not settle the morality of homosexual behavior, and could not serve to justify, much less require, any society to grant the status of marriage to homosexual couples. (Resolution On Homosexual Marriage 1996).

This passage reveals the SBC's intense dislike for homosexuality, even to the point that any truth discovered through scientific means that may run counter to their hatred of homosexuals is to be disavowed. They see God as the "moral ruler" of the universe, and since Southern Baptists see homosexuality as a moral issue, then Southern Baptists must side with God and stamp out homosexual activity, as well as the "desire" of homosexuality activity. In other words, to even think about same-sex relations is a terrible sin. Notice the language used in this resolution (and reflected in many of the other resolutions): homosexuality is sinful, impure, degrading, shameful, unnatural, indecent and perverted. And this language is backed up with a Bible verse, Romans 1:24-27. In addition, Leviticus 20:13 is quoted: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

The position held by Southern Baptists is that that homosexuality is a sin, a choice, and a sickness. As long as homosexuality can be considered a sin, then its remedy is confession and repentance. Repentance means the homosexual must return to the natural order, "established by God," and become a heterosexual. All men and women are to be heterosexual, as that is God's plan for humanity and insures the safety of the family and civilization. The unrepentant homosexual becomes not only an enemy of the church but also of the whole world. If any nation should neglect it's responsibly to enforce the law of God's natural order, then God will remove His hand of protection. W. A. Criswell in his sermon entitled "The Tragedy of Those Times," embodies this idea of how a nation must deal with homosexuals:

And any time America, America, beautiful America, any time America lifts up her head in pride and beneath her skirts are filthiness, and lewdness, and gross, vile, indescribable wickedness and iniquity our destiny lies in the imponderables of God. Never forget it. Never forget it.

And at the Word of His counsel at the breath of His mouth all of this beautiful land could be plowed up in heaps and the nation destroyed. And everything we've ever loved and everything to which we have given our lives could overnight become as lost to us as the City of Zion was lost to the people of God.

Such is the depravity of human nature that unless it is restrained by the strong hand of a strong government, it subverts the whole nation and destroys the whole fabric of city. We are commanded to love God. We are commanded to obey the king. (Criswell, The Tragedy of Those Times 1960).

In this sermon about homosexuals, Criswell always refers to sodomy or sodomites. Criswell describes homosexuals as "a vile sin of civilization and mostly of city life; sodomy." As long as Southern Baptists continue to claim homosexuality as a sin using an absolutist interpretation of the Bible as their authority, it makes it a simple problem of "getting right" with God by confession and repentance. In reality, confessing and repenting of homosexuality would be no more effective than confessing and repenting from heterosexuality. By labeling homosexuality a sin, it becomes a simple matter to isolate and persecute all non-heterosexuals.

A sin, as it is understood by Southern Baptists, is an act, and as an act, it can be confessed and repented. However, a lesbian or gay individual is not act or an action, but a person. Southern Baptists view homosexuals and homosexuality as one and the same; and therefore, if the act has been declared a sin, then the actor is a sinner. This is the rationale for how it becomes acceptable to think bad things, say bad things, and ultimately do bad things to homosexuals. The act of homosexuals is considered vile; therefore, the homosexual himself or herself must be vile. This presents a very serious problem when contrasted with the idea that God loves all people in equal fashion.

Many Southern Baptist resolutions contain the caveat that God loves the homosexual in spite of the homosexual being odious to God. This is called, "God loves the sinner but hates the sin" as the answer to the homosexual question. Consider the following resolutions:

Resolution on Same Sex Marriage and Civil Rights.

RESOLVED, That we express our love to those who struggle with same-sex attraction and who are engaged in the homosexual lifestyle; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we stand against any form of gay-bashing, whether disrespectful attitudes, hateful rhetoric, or hate-incited actions toward persons who engage in acts of homosexuality; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we affirm that pastors should preach the truth of God's word on human sexuality, marriage, purity, and love with all boldness and without fear of reprisal; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage our fellow Southern Baptists to consider how they and their churches might engage in compassionate, redemptive ministry to those who struggle with homosexuality; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we proclaim that Christ offers forgiveness of sin for those who turn from their sins and believe on Christ for the forgiveness of sin. (Resolution on Same Sex Marriage and Civil Rights 2012)

A second example is found in the resolution passed June 2009, entitled _On_ Biblical Sexuality and Public Policy:

"RESOLVED, That we affirm the Southern Baptist Convention Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals in its effort to call our churches to engage in loving, redemptive ministry to homosexuals." (Resolution on Biblical Sexuality and Public Policy, 2009).

A further example of this view is from 1988 resolution:

A Resolution on Homosexuality.

Therefore be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 14-16, 1988, deplore homosexuality as a perversion of divine standards and as a violation of nature and natural affections; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we affirm the biblical injunction which declares homosexuals, like all sinners, can receive forgiveness and victory through personal faith in Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11); and

Be it finally RESOLVED, That we maintain that while God loves the homosexual and offers salvation, homosexuality is not a normal lifestyle and is an abomination in the eyes of God (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:24-28; 1 Timothy 1:8-10). (Resolution On Homosexual Marriage 1996).

Southern Baptists, on the one hand, wish to clearly identify homosexuals and homosexuality activity, even the desire itself, as being inseparable; on the other hand, they wish to establish a dichotomy between the person and the act. Love the homosexual and hate the homosexual behavior is the phrase often used. It is interesting to note that neither Jesus nor Paul made a distinction between the person and the behavior.

W.A. Criswell makes no mistake in identifying the homosexual and homosexuality as one and the same in his sermon, "Why God Abhors Homosexuals":

The title of the sermon as it was published, Why God Abhors the Homosexual, I had it written out in the message I prepared Why God Abhors Homosexuality. That is the title here in my study. And someone wrote on the Sunday bulletin, "It ought not to be why God abhors the homosexual, but why God abhors homosexuality. And I looked at that as carefully as I know how. I am not an originator. I am not an entrepreneur. I do not invent the message: I am an echo; I am a voice crying in the wilderness of this world. And what I present is not from me, its from God's Holy Word. And there is no such distinction as that made in Scripture. It is sinners that are cast into eternal hell. Sin also I suppose, because death and Hades, the grave, are cast into everlasting damnation; and I presume that means that in the kingdom to come, in the world that God has prepared for those who love Him, there will be no sin, and no unrighteousness, and no death, and no grave. We won't see funeral processions through the golden streets of heaven, and we won't place gravestones on the hillsides of the New Jerusalem. But still it is sinners that are forever shut out from those who refuse the mercies of God; and it is homosexuals that God addresses in the Bible, not homosexuality, it is homosexuals. (Why God Abhors Homosexuals 1986).

W.A. Criswell, is very clear that there is no separation between the homosexual and homosexuality. To Criswell, God despises both the sin and sinner, and in this case, it is the sin of homosexuality. This puts the concept of "we love the sinner (homosexuals) but hate the sin (homosexual activity) on thin ice. However, as Criswell points out, "I do not invent the message: I am an echo; I am a voice crying in the wilderness of this world. And what I present is not from me, it's from God's Holy Word." So, he argues that to argue with him is to argue with God.

In Southern Baptist doctrine, according to a literal reading of the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, and God as the "Creator and Judge of all, has ruled that homosexual conduct is always a gross moral and spiritual abomination for any person, whether male or female, under any circumstance, without exception" (Lev.18:22; 20:13). Nevertheless, along with the SBC literal reading of these passages, they often combine teachings that God loves homosexuals in spite of hating their homosexuality. In other words, God hates the desires and acts of a homosexual yet still loves that person. The obvious inconsistency is that if God loves the homosexual, why should he or she change. The point is that the act and the actor are inseparable, and this fact puts Southern Baptists without defense in their hateful rhetoric derived by an absolutist interpretation of the Bible. It is impossible to love the sinner and hate the sin at the same time, and yet this mantra is repeated frequently in conjunction with Southern Baptist attacks on homosexuals. Early in my career as a Southern Baptist pastor, I used this tactic often, love the sinner hate the sin, as it was not possible to confront the homosexual question without such a doctrinal escape route. I was able to denounce homosexuals in the most violent terms and then close with the statement that we love them as people, even though we, like God, find his or her lifestyle an abomination.

It is not possible for Southern Baptist pastors to remain quiet on the matter of homosexuality, as Southern Baptists believe it is the duty of ministers to openly oppose all immorality, especially homosexuality, as stipulated in _The Baptist Faith and Message_ :

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ).

A pastor's inability to vigorously join in the chorus of voices condemning homosexuals and homosexual activity is viewed as sin by not joining the "war" against immorality. The above passage is taken from the _Baptist Faith and Message,_ which serves as a creed for Southern Baptist churches. When being questioned by a pulpit committee in regards to assuming a pastorate in a Southern Baptist church, one is asked if they accept the statement of faith found within the _Baptist Faith and Message._ A Southern Baptist pastor is expected to teach that homosexuality is, was, and always will be a sin and hated by God. As mentioned earlier, it is unallowable for a Southern Baptist pastor to confront these irrational, absolutist, and literalist arguments for the demonizing of homosexuality without being punished.

As can be seen in article III, section 1, (previously quoted) no messengers will be received that comes from a church that acts to "affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior." There are no provisions that reject messengers from churches that approve genocide, slavery, heresy, abortion, witchcraft, liberals, feminists, dictators, or any other evil perceived or otherwise, other than homosexuals and homosexuality. To even dare to speak in favor of homosexuals puts one in danger of having their entire church removed from the local association of SBC churches, the State SBC, and the national SBC. Southern Baptist churches are loud and clear that homosexuality is a sin, sickness, and a choice and is the greatest threat to the institution of marriage, the stability of the nation. They believe that if not confronted from our pulpits, God will visit judgment on America.

What is interesting to note is that the same Bible that is used to condemn homosexuals was used for nearly 400 years to justify the institution of slavery by the same religious organizations. It is often heard that God will judge America if homosexuality is not confronted and condemned; yet if God did not destroy America over using the Bible to enslave millions of Africans, it is doubtful God will destroy America on account of homosexuality.

Therefore, to become acceptable to God according to a literal reading of the Bible, homosexuals must either change their sexual preference, or leave the Church. Yet much of the suffering lesbian and gays undergo is a direct result of being rejected by the Church based on biblical arguments. Previously in this book, we saw that African Americans were taught from the Bible that God made them slaves and that they were inferior to their white masters and that nothing could be done to remedy the situation. In addition, women have been taught using scripture that they should always be subordinate to men, and to usurp authority is a sin against God. Now, the attention of the SBC turns to homosexuals, using the Bible in the same literalist fashion in order to persecute and condemn as has been done in the past. If God truly hates homosexuals and all Christians are to war against this immoral category of people, then there is no place for homosexuals in the Christian Church. However, this presentation of Christianity is only found in those religious traditions that practice a perverse absolutist, literal reading of the Bible.

When homosexuality is categorized as a sin, as stipulated by Southern Baptists, this makes all homosexuals living in a _state of sin_. The Southern Baptists, as written in the _Baptist Faith and Message_ claim it is the work of the Holy Spirit to "convict of sin" ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ , section II), citing John 16:8, "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment." The idea of conviction, of being convicted, is to produce a sense of guilt that leads to repentance. In other words, according to Southern Baptists it is expected, for the homosexual to live in a constant state of guilt until they repent of their homosexuality. Hal Lane, the chairman of the trustees of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC in a paper he presented entitled, "What does the Bible Really say about Heterosexual Marriage and Homosexuality," states:

People are born with a sin nature that manifests itself in many expressions of rebellion against God. God is not to be blamed for our sinful choices. He sent His Son to deliver us from the penalty and the practice of sin, including homosexuality. (Lane, 2007).

Homosexuality is the willful practice of sin producing "conviction" by the agency of the Holy Spirit of which there is no release of this conviction without the total abandonment of homosexual practice, and homosexual desire. This type of religious belief, based on a literalist interpretation of the Bible, places homosexual individuals in the position of abandoning their religion or to live in a state of guilt and shame. A literal reading of the Bible will make Christianity unavailable to homosexuals who wish to protect their mental health and enjoy the same guilt free life available to heterosexuals. It seems a guilt free life is for only heterosexuals, according to an absolutist interpretation of the Bible.

Just as Southern Baptists see homosexuality as sin, they also see it as a choice. The idea of it being a choice is important because if one chooses to be homosexual, then they can likewise choose to be heterosexual. It is a matter of being willing to reject the homosexual teachings of the world through the media, sex education at school, and other "big city" influences. Heterosexuality is God's standard for all expressions of sexuality, and any other choice is considered a pathological deviancy.

In the previous quote by Hal Lane, the term "sinful choices" is used in accordance with homosexuality. This term can be found in many of the SBC resolutions and in Southern Baptist Bible study material, often inserted in a fashion that is almost unnoticeable. Examples may be found in the following resolutions:

Resolution On Hate Crimes Legislation

WHEREAS, Proponents argue that the establishment of such protected classes is a civil rights issue, yet neither homosexuals nor transgendered persons constitute a class like race, ethnicity, or gender because their identity is based upon a lifestyle choice. (Resolution On Hate Crimes Legislation, 2007)

_Resolution On Homosexual Marriage  
_

WHEREAS, There is much scientific evidence showing that homosexual attractions are pathological, abnormal, and mostly if not entirely a matter of external influence, learned behavior, acquired taste and personal choice; and, although there have been speculations, no conclusive scientific evidence has been found to support claims that homosexual attractions are biologically fixed and irreversible. (Resolution On Homosexual Marriage, 1996).

In 1980, W.A. Criswell was very confident in his belief that homosexuality _is_ a choice, as evidenced in his sermon, "Lot: Living With Homosexuals":

One of the things that I read over and over again in my study is some of these psychologists avow that homosexuality is genetically conditioned; that we inherited it. That's not so! Let me read a report from Lorne Brown, M.D. in the University Health Center of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, Nebraska. Now you listen to what he says: "Let me dispel the great myth about homosexuality, that it is a condition one does not choose and for which one is not responsible. A homosexual becomes one by a series of choices. These choices may seem imperceptible to him because they're not at first conscious choices to overt homosexual activity. Most frequently, they are those of social attraction, for reasons other than sexual, to a person of the same sex. As the friendship becomes more intimate, some sexual stimulation occurs; and if there is not a prior commitment to its wrongness, the homosexual conduct, this develops into overt acts. The pattern, if not abruptly broken off, develops more rapidly if the person or persons with whom the novice associates is already a practicing homosexual. As the friendship deepens, the values and lifestyle of the friends becomes accepted. Then one day he "discovers" that he really has a preference for homosexuality. This is entirely because of the conditioning that has taken place and has no basis whatever in his genetic, anatomic, or physiologic makeup." And then I have here a study from Dr. Ruben, M.D., who says that in psychology, it is definitely proven that homosexuality is not inherited. It is an acquired characteristic. It is a learned sin, an act of perversion. You don't have to be a homosexual. You don't have to be a sodomite. You don't have to be a lesbian. It is a learned and practiced sin. (Criswell, Lot: Living With Homosexuals 1980).

What is absent from this SBC belief, that homosexuality is a choice, is a lack of biblical material for its support. Yet even without this support, it must be maintained that the sin of homosexuality is a choice, and as a choice, it can be repented of and the homosexual can be restored to heterosexuality. It cannot be possible for it to be sin and not be a choice. This point cannot be argued strong enough: Homosexuality must at all cost be promoted as a choice because if it is not a choice, then it is not a sin.

One aspect in convincing people it is a choice is the idea that homosexuals can lead others, including children, to choose homosexuality. In doing so, the homosexual is not only identified as someone outside the fellowship of the people of God but now is the _enemy_ of the people of God and must be aggressively opposed. On July 4, 1986, a steering committee of sixty SBC members signed the _Manifesto for the Christian Church Declaration and Covenant,_ and one of those signing this document was the chairman of the committee that produced the 2000 edition of the _Baptist Faith and Message_ , Adrian Rogers. Article twenty of the manifesto under the heading of "Social Evils to Oppose" states the following:

We affirm that all Bible-believing Christians must take a non-neutral stance in opposing, praying against, and speaking against social moral evils such as the following: Abortion on demand, infanticide, and euthanasia, adultery,

fornication, homosexuality, bestiality and other forms of sexual perversion.

(A Manifesto for the Christian Church 1986).

There is no neutral ground. To fail to confront the evil lobby of homosexuality is to fail in the struggle against darkness. As long as Southern Baptists can maintain that homosexuality is a choice, in spite of any forthcoming evidence to the contrary, there will be a common rallying point for the persecution of all homosexuals. All the while "opposing" the evil of the homosexual, the homosexual agenda, and the homosexual lobby, Southern Baptists continue to repeat the mantra that we are only to hate the sin, not the sinner. In the context that Southern Baptists always use a wealth of biblical material to support any and all of their important issues, they fail to cite a single verse to indicate that homosexuality is a choice.

Southern Baptists, perhaps more than any other denomination, have a peculiar hatred of homosexuals. Whatever the reason for this misplaced zeal, they never fail to use the Bible as their authority in order to insure that it is God speaking and that they are just the messengers. That is what they said when the Bible was being used to enslave over fifteen million Africans. They were just the messengers then, and they are just the messengers now.

Chapter 9

Old Testament Arguments Against Homosexuality

Sir, as long as the first chapter of the Book of Romans is in the Bible, and as long as the city of Sodom remains under the judgment of God, sodomy and homosexuality is a disgrace and a reproach to any nation and to any people.

—W.A. Criswell

Homosexuality in this book shall be interpreted to mean a sexual orientation, or same sex attraction, towards one's own gender. Homosexuality is to be distinguished from acts of homosexuality. Homosexuality, as a sexual orientation between two people of the same gender, that is equal to heterosexual relationships, is not addressed in the Bible. Every prohibition in the Old Testament is addressed to homosexual acts and not homosexuality. Homosexuality in the ancient world was generally a matter of male dominion, pederasty, and abuse and should not be compared to homosexuals and homosexuality in the modern era. Southern Baptists do not distinguish between acts of homosexuality and homosexuality as a sexual orientation. In addition, they interpret any mention of same sex relationships in the Old and New Testaments as being equivalent to homosexuality, as it is understood today.

For Southern Baptists, Old Testament Law has been fulfilled at the Cross, unless it can be used to advance positions that are important to the SBC. For our concern we will look at the use of the Old Testament in its use for the persecution of homosexuals, homosexual activity, and homosexual desire. The most common passage used in the Old Testament among Southern Baptists is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah found in Genesis 19:1-29. This is the passage from which we get the word "sodomite." The word sodomite has come to be synonymous with any homosexual activity. It has become a favorite term among Southern Baptist preachers to refer to homosexuals as sodomites because it links the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with homosexuality. W.A. Criswell says it plainly, "A sodomite is a homosexual" (Criswell, Why God Abhors The Homosexual 1986). This passage has traditionally been interpreted among Southern Baptists to mean that there was a city that was utterly depraved because of homosexual practice, and because of this depravity, God sent two angels to rescue righteous Lot and destroy the city of Sodom.

This widely held view ignores some of the other elements of this passage. First, there is no evidence that the Cities of the Plain are being destroyed for any reason other than "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord." There is nothing said about where this outcry came from or for what reason it came. It is very difficult to believe that homosexuals have been terribly persecuted over many years based upon a passage in the Old Testament in which there is not clear as to what the sin of Sodom might have been. If the hatred of homosexuals were not so deeply rooted in the minds of biblical literalists, it would not be likely they would have ever come to the conclusion that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuals.

In a literal interpretation of the story of Sodom, there are a number of things to consider. For example, this passage seems to indicate that angels get tired, grow hungry, and need to eat. It also clearly states that all the men in the city of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other Cities of the Plain were homosexual. Lot and his sons lived in this city, and yet they were unmolested. Do the men of the city seek to rape all strangers who wander into their city? Why did God destroy every living person, young and old, in a fiery death? Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be raped? A true literal hermeneutic must answer all these questions. This is not a story of homosexuality but one of brutality and inhumanity to others. The worst character in the story is arguably Lot who offers his daughters to a mob to be raped and murdered in order to preserve his religious principles. The angels clearly demonstrated they could care for themselves by using supernatural power to blind their attackers. Biblical literalists only see one thread in this story, and that is the dubious idea that homosexuality is the cause of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain. They refuse to consider the rest. Their dislike of homosexuals seems to obscure their vision in they can see not further, or care to see further.

This story illustrates that those who wish to designate homosexuality as a special offence to God can create support for their point of view using the Bible. It does not matter that these verses do not mention homosexuality as the reason for the destruction of the Cities of the Plain, or that it is not possible for every male in all the Cities of the Plain to be homosexual, or that the only clear offense, other than criminal rape, is Lot's offering his two daughters to be raped and murdered. Just as the term "sodomite" has become synonymous with homosexuals, one wonders why the term Lotites has not become synonymous with one who would willingly give up one's children to be brutalized.

A similar passage is found in Judges 19:1-30. It is interesting to note that while Southern Baptists often use Genesis 19 to demonstrate that homosexuality is a gross sin before God, they rarely use Judges 19. Judges 19:22-29 reads:

While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a depraved lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, 'Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him.' And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, 'No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them; but against this man do not do such a vile thing.' But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and abused her all through the night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. As morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, until it was light.

In the morning her master got up, opened the doors of the house, and when he went out to go on his way, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 'Get up,' he said to her, 'we are going.' But there was no answer. Then he put her on the donkey; and the man set out for his home. When he had entered his house, he took a knife, and grasping his concubine he cut her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. (Judg.19:22-29).

This story is very similar to the story found in Genesis but yet is never used as a source to condemn homosexuality. This passage is too brutal and has the hero of the story (the Levite) allowing his concubine to be turned over to a mob to be raped and murdered. This passage should be allowed the same treatment that is afforded in Genesis 19. If Genesis 19 is a polemic against homosexuality, then Judges 19 should be allowed the same credentials. The problem is we have the offering of a young girl to be raped and murdered solely to prevent homosexual activity. To make matters worse, the Levite mutilates the corpse of his concubine and sends pieces of her "throughout all the territory of Israel." Again, this is not a passage about homosexuality; it is a passage about rape, murder, and the incredible cowardly act of a Levite who believed his religious principles were greater than the lives of others. Jesus addressed this attitude when He said to the Pharisees "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" (Matt. 9:13).

A third passage from the Old Testament is Leviticus 18:6-23:

None of you shall approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness: I am the Lord. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is the nakedness of your father. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether born at home or born abroad. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or of your daughter's daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's flesh. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is your mother's flesh. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son's wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your flesh; it is depravity. And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.

You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. You shall not have sexual relations with your kinsman's wife, and defile yourself with her. You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is a abomination. You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion. (Lev.18:6-23).

This passage covers a number of sexual prohibitions, one of which refers to male homosexuality, calling it an abomination. Southern Baptists are quick to choose a literal reading of this passage to condemn homosexuality while ignoring all the other elements of this passage. Their focus is on one short passage, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." This is the great flaw in all literalism in that it is always selective. At one point in Southern Baptist history, such biblical literalism was used, very effectively, to prove God sanctioned slavery. Now, this same method of interpretation is being used to enslave homosexuals, demanding they conform to heterosexuality. The very first verse in this passage identifies this as a conversation between God and the people of Israel, not God and all humanity for all time. This passage cannot be construed to be speaking to anyone that is not an Israelite living during the Bronze Age. It is impossible to teach that there is a single passage in the Old Testament that has any authority over the life of a single person while also saying that the majority of the Old Testament no longer applies.

If it is true that this passage condemns male homosexuality as an abomination to God, then it demands that all other Old Testament passages are equally true for the Church today. I think the Church would readily agree that we should not continue to follow the Old Testament doctrines that demand the execution of Sabbath breakers, witches, children who are disobedient, and homosexuals. It is the willingness of biblical literalists to choose only the passages from the Old Testament that suit their purposes that exposes both the danger and the weakness of literalism. In this passage God says they must keep His statutes and ordinances, but no Southern Baptists today wish to keep all the Laws of the Old Testament They wish to keep this one short statement: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The rest of the passages seem to be optional cultural artifacts.

For the SBC to consider embracing all of Leviticus 18 is to insist that God is very concerned with human sexuality and wishes to govern it down to the last detail. In fact, God is pictured here as being so concerned with human sexuality that if we fail to observe these sexual restrictions then "the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you" (Lev. 18:38). If any transgression of this list of sexual prohibitions occurs, the people will be exiled from their country. To extrapolate this passage to a universal literal application for the sake of an argument against homosexuality exposes it to the question: why has God not destroyed all the people who practice adultery, incest, and bestiality, as well as homosexuality? There is not a single nation where adultery is not practiced, and yet God has not destroyed them on account of this practice. Based upon these facts, it is not possible to make a case of God despising homosexuality based on Leviticus chapter 18.

This passage, along with the previous passages from the Old Testament, blatantly reveals the flaw of biblical literalism in that it unfairly chooses portions of the Old Testament that suits its needs for any given period in history in order to use God's authority to support a specific cause. Obviously, this hermeneutical method can be used to find biblical support for any and all causes. Biblical support can be found for any cause if one wishes to claim the authority to determine which verses are literal and which are metaphorical.

There is one word in the passage of Leviticus 18 that is often quoted among Southern Baptists and that is the word "abomination." "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" is one verse in the Old Testament that is quoted more frequently in the condemning of homosexuals than any other verse. However, consider other things that are an abomination to God: Eating lobster, squid, octopus, shrimp, clam or snakes (Lev.11:1-23), women who wear men's clothing and men wearing women's cloaks (Deut. 22:5), those who are proud and arrogant (Prov. 16:5), unequal weights and measures (Prov. 20:10), those who mock others (Prov. 24:9), and those who oppress the poor (Ezek. 18:12-13). There are many things that are said to be an abomination to God, but biblical literalists focus on the one thing they detest the most, homosexuality, ignoring all the others.

Biblical literalists see the Old Testament as a book of rules. Most of the rules no longer apply, and yet some are still in effect. The rules that are still in effect change from year to year as different religious leaders step to the fore of the SBC and convince others they are the ones to make such a determination. If they say homosexuality is an abomination to God and homosexuals must be rooted out and destroyed before God destroys America (or any country they might hail from), then God has spoken from His inerrant and authoritative Word. They ignore the fact that God was speaking (past tense) to a very specific people at a specific time in their history.

It is impossible to know what the writer of the Book of Leviticus meant when he wrote that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, but what we do know is that the declaration of God's love is not based on sexual identity. It is difficult to believe God accepts and loves only the heterosexual. If that is the case, then as stated earlier in this book, _we cause_ all homosexuals to live their lives disgraced and alienated from their Creator. Under such a rubric, how would it ever be possible to proclaim the Good News of the Gospel allowing all sinners to come to the Cross as they are, except the homosexual, who are said to be an affront to God?

A final Old Testament passage used by Southern Baptists in their literal use of the Bible for the universal and absolute condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality is Leviticus 20:9-16:

All who curse father or mother shall be put to death; having cursed father or mother, their blood is upon them. If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is depravity; they shall be burned to death, both he and they, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and has sexual relations with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. (Lev. 20:9-16).

It is clear to whom this is addressed: "Say further to the people of Israel." This passage is a message from God to the people of Israel, not a prohibition against homosexuals for time eternal as taught by Southern Baptists. However, this passage includes a provision of what to do with those who are homosexual, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death." There can be no mistake. A literal interpretation of this passage is very clear that those who practice homosexuality must be executed. It is difficult to make a case of homosexuality being an abomination using this passage without also arguing for the execution of homosexuals. Again, this exposes a fallacy of biblical literalism in that it is selective.

The same biblical authority that would justify executing homosexuals would also clearly apply to those who commit adultery (Lev. 29:10,12), girls who lie about their virginity (Deut. 22: 20-21), the daughter of a priest who becomes a prostitute (Lev. 21:9), a man marrying a woman and her daughter (Lev. 20:14), worshiping idols (Lev. 20:1-5), blasphemy (Lev. 24:14), breaking the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14), practicing magic (Ex. 22:18), being a witch (Lev. 20:27), striking your parents (Ex. 21:15), cursing your parents (Ex. 21:17; Lev. 20:9), being a stubborn and disobedient son (Deut. 21:18-21) and many other grievances. If the Bible condemns homosexuality universally, then that same Bible calls for their execution, along with disobedient children, witches, Sabbath breakers and adulterers.

Southern Baptists have a tendency to interpose homosexuality in the Bible where it is not contextually present. An example of this is from a sermon by W.A. Criswell who argues that the sin of homosexuality was damned prior to the giving of the Law and therefore is an abomination to God. The title of his sermon was, "Noah: Drugs, Drunkenness, and Nakedness" delivered at the First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas, in 1980. The following is a portion of the sermon:

And Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.'"

Now when you read that, it looks sort of innocent like, just a little incidental pericope in the life of this man, this patriarch, and from the Bible. But when you study that, and especially in the Hebrew language, there is an altogether different picture than anything you would ever have imagined by reading it in this King James Version of the Bible, Noah began to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard.

We do not know who first cultivated corn or wheat or cotton. The man who benefited the race so exorbitantly and aboundingly [sic] is unknown. Nor do we know who first domesticated the cattle and the sheep and the animals that mean so much to human life. We do not know who that man is or was. But we know the man who first cultivated the vine, who crushed the fruit of the grape and let it ferment and drank of it. That man was Noah. And it says that, as he drank of that fermented fruit of the vine and was drunken, the Bible here in the King James Version says, And he was uncovered within his tent."

No! The Hebrew says he uncovered himself. He did that volitionally and willfully himself. He did it. Being inebriated and drunken with wine, he uncovered himself. He exposed himself like an exhibitionist, Noah did. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brethren without.' No! Not at all! Ham, the father of Canaan, saw with delight and satisfaction, and he told with great gladness and detail. So when Noah came to himself and knew what his younger son had done unto him" now, that's an amazing thing. The Hebrew is, his son, the little one." Always that phrase, "his son, the little one," always referred to the youngest member of the family; always. There's no exception to that. Like Benjamin is called "the son, the little one, he was the youngest member of the family. David is called "the son, the little one," he's the youngest member of the family. Now, the youngest son of Noah is not Ham; the youngest son is Japheth. "The younger son, the little one," refers to another member of the family: Canaan. For the next verse says, "And he said, 'Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Well, how did Canaan get in that, and what crime did he commit that he should be cursed, because we have the impression that this thing concerns Ham?

Well, when you put it all together, it is very apparent what happened. The word "son" in Hebrew is used for grandson. It can mean either one: a son, a grandson. And Canaan is the grandson of Noah, and Canaan is the youngest son of Ham, "the son, the little one." That is, Canaan was the youngest member in the family, the grandson of Noah, the youngest son of Ham, and the youngest son in the family. Now, what did this Canaan do that brought him this terrible curse? Well, it is very apparent what he did. Noah, under the influence of liquor, of alcohol, is there in the tent exposing himself, and Canaan comes and sees it and delights in it and indulges in it.

And the darkening silence of the Scriptures but emphasizes the horror of the situation, for this young son, this youngest member of the family, Canaan, goes into the tent, and evidently under the influence of liquor, at the invitation and the encouragement of his grandfather, he falls into homosexual acts, naked and uncovered, and doing it himself. Why, this young boy begins to play with the male genitalia! And Ham, he delighted in it like an X-rated movie! Ham thought, "This was the best pornographic panorama I ever saw." And the Book says that Ham saw it with interest and excitement and delight, and he told about it with satisfaction and exultation. (Criswell, Noah: Drugs, Drunkenness, and Nakedness 1980).

This Southern Baptist pastor uses the same passage to damn homosexuals that a century earlier was used to damn African Americans. In just over one hundred years, the passage that was used to lend God's support to the institution of slavery is now being used as lending God's name to the persecution of homosexuals. In one generation Ham, the son of Noah went from being a black man forever cursed to serve white masters, along with all his descendants, to being a homosexual. Biblical literalists claim the Bible is inerrant and unchanging; yet it changes with every new generation of leaders.

The Old Testament was written thousands of years ago in languages we scarcely understand, by many unknown authors to a people whose cultures have been long lost to antiquity. However, some claim to know with a great deal of certainty and detail exactly what is meant in all passages of the Old Testament. If, in fact, the purpose and message of the Old Testament is to make lives worse and people sicker from guilt, then for all practical purposes, it should be avoided. On the other hand, if we can understand the Bible as a collection of stories and information reflecting an ancient people interacting with God in their own culture and in their own time, then we can appreciate the beauty of these ancient books. It is only those who never take up the task of determining what is cultural and what is transcultural, what is history, what is metaphorical, and when is God speaking to all or speaking to some, that end up causing the most damage while claiming to do the work of God.

Chapter 10

New Testament Arguments Against Homosexuality

When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals – the two things seem to go together.

—Pat Robertson

The New Testament, like the Old Testament, refers only to homosexual activity, not homosexuals or homosexuality. Homosexual activity that is addressed in the New Testament is a reflection of the same Jewish condemnation of homosexual acts as codified in the Mosaic Law. Again, as in the Old Testament, homosexuality was a matter of male dominion, pederasty, and abuse and should not be compared to homosexuals and homosexuality in the modern era.

My fundamentalist Southern Baptist view on homosexuality was challenged when I found a small tract on the ground entitled, "Everything Jesus Said about Homosexuality." I picked it up and eagerly opened it, certain I was going to get new information to add to my storehouse of popular sermons on homosexuals. When I opened the tract, it was blank. I stared at it for a few minutes; then it slowly began to sink in. Jesus said nothing about homosexuals or homosexuality. I thought it must be nothing more than gay propaganda, as Jesus must have said something about homosexuality. I went home and began to search the Gospels to find the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is that Jesus says nothing about homosexuals or homosexuality.

A literal interpretation of the Bible wishes to sustain the idea that the entire Bible is equally inspired, authoritative, "totally true and trustworthy," and in practice we see Jesus being quoted whenever possible in order to gain the final word on any doctrine one wishes to advance. This practice collapses when it comes to the subject of homosexuality and homosexuals because Jesus is silent on the entire issue. Yet He is not silent on the universal family of God (while teaching a random group of followers He tells them to call God, "our father," in Matt. 6:9), and that we are to love one another without provision: "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another" (John 13:34). However, if biblical literalists cannot find Jesus speaking against homosexuality, they flock to the next best authority: passages in the New Testament from other authors. Southern Baptists never make the statement that the New Testament is superior to the Old Testament, but it is always used in such a manner. And when pressed on this fact, it is claimed that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Therefore, if every argument from the Old Testament against homosexuality could dissipate through sound biblical hermeneutics they resort to the New Testament as the final argument and the one that carries the greatest authority.

There are three passages found in the New Testament that are considered to be the definitive arguments against homosexuality. These passages are definitive in the fact that they are written in the New Testament and carry a certain authority and clarity that the stories in the Old Testament do not carry to the Southern Baptist. Again, this reveals a flaw in the hermeneutics of biblical literalism. If, the Old Testament stories of Sodom and Gomorra are in fact literal truths of God and if Ham was a homosexual and not an African, then no added argument from the New Testament are needed. If there is a general prohibition against homosexuals, then one single verse would suffice, and we would not need additional "proof" from the New Testament.

The first passage in the New Testament that is used by biblical literalists to ensure that homosexuality is recognized as an illegitimate form of sexual expression, a sin, and a threat to society is Romans 1:21-32:

For though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four- footed animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. (Rom. 1:21-32).

This passage is considered to be the most important passage in the Bible to demonstrate that homosexuality is a sin and is, therefore, incompatible with Christianity. The illusion is, that if homosexuality is unacceptable to Paul, then it must be unacceptable to God. Therefore, it must be unacceptable to all of those who practice the Christian religion. This seems to imply that somehow Paul has become the one that defines what is to constitute Christianity. Paul has become the one who is to be the final arbitrator of what is acceptable to God not only for his generation but also for all generations to come.

There is no doubt the Southern Baptists consider this passage in Romans as a proof text for identifying homosexuality as an abomination, and it is often quoted in their position papers as demonstrated by a paper written by Hal Lane, Chairman of the Trustees of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention entitled, "What does the Bible really say about heterosexual marriage and homosexuality?"

The New Testament also clearly identifies homosexuality as immorality. Jesus' statement, "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17), indicated His agreement with all moral laws of the Mosaic Law including the laws prohibiting homosexuality. His statements on marriage and divorce in Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-9 revealed His agreement with the definition of marriage as a lawful bond between a man and woman for life. The Apostle Paul confronted a secular culture where homosexuality was accepted and endorsed by influential writers and leaders. In contrast to the acceptance of homosexuality by many in the first century A.D., Paul referred to the practice as "sexual impurity," "unnatural," "shameless acts," and "perversion" (Rom. 1:24-27). Paul included "homosexuals" among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Homosexuality is also included in a list of sins in First Timothy 1:10. (Lane 2007).

While they see this passage as the perfect argument for the labeling of homosexuality as a gross immorality, they fail to notice that Paul also says that those who practice such things are worthy of death. The hue and cry of the SBC against homosexuality is deathly quiet on the very last verse of this passage, that homosexuals should be put to death. This silence seems to be agreed upon, as there is no one that seems to raise the question that the Christian church should call for the execution of homosexuals based upon the authority of Paul and the New Testament. Perhaps it is best to ask the only legitimate question: does Paul speak for God or does he speak for himself in the context of the age he observes? If Paul speaks for God, then all the writings ascribed to Paul carry the same authority as the teachings of the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus. If this were true, then all the slave passages written by Paul must still be in effect, and slaves are to obey their masters as unto the Lord. We excuse the slave passages as being cultural artifacts, but we somehow retain Paul's comments on homosexuals as being binding throughout all the ages.

This verse is a condemnation of a practice of sexuality that is demeaning and repulsive within its cultural context. What it is, specifically, that Paul is referring to is perhaps unknown or at least open to debate. It cannot be said that all homosexual relationships are pathological and disruptive to society any more than a universal statement can be made that heterosexual relationships are pathological. In addition, Paul does not say that he is making a statement on the behalf of God and those who wish to establish Paul as the authoritative, inerrant voice of God read this idea into this passage. Nowhere does Paul consider himself to be the mouthpiece of God.

The second passage from the New Testament is found in I Corinthians 6:9-11:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (I Cor. 6:9-11).

This is a passage that includes a list of behaviors that are unacceptable to Paul. The obvious mistake made when biblical literalists use passages such as this to support their arguments for or against any behavior is that they fail to mention that the lists are never exhaustive. Paul mentions some behaviors that he believes eliminates some from the kingdom of God and fails to mention other much more grievous behaviors such as rape, pedophilia, murder, participating in owning and selling slaves, and kidnapping, to name a few. Paul focuses on fornication, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and robbers for some reasons that are unknown to the modern reader. In addition, there is no emphasis placed on any one behavior. To say this is a passage that condemns homosexuals fails to place equal emphasis on all the other behaviors on the list with equal intensity. The SBC has passed over forty resolutions on homosexuals, and yet not a single resolution has been submitted on "robbers."

It is not possible when working with great gaps in our knowledge to make fundamental statements to buttress the teachings of the SBC on the subject of homosexuality. If this were the only verse in the Bible that mentions human sexuality, would it be enough to state unequivocally that homosexuals are unfit for the kingdom of God and that unless they join the heterosexual ranks the gates of heaven will be forever closed? If not, then this passage should not be used for the purpose it was never intended.

The third and final verse used by biblical literalist to gain New Testament support for the persecution of homosexuals is I Timothy 1:8-11:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

(I Tim. 1:8-11).

In these instructions that Paul is giving his young ward Timothy, we find another list of behaviors that are offensive. In this list there is one word that stands out more than any other, including "those who kill their fathers and mothers," and "slave traders," and "sodomites." For Southern Baptists, sodomites have always meant homosexuals; the two words are interchangeable. In his sermon "Why God Abhors the Homosexual," W.A. Criswell states, "A sodomite is a homosexual" (Criswell 1986). It does not matter that the Greek word that is translated sodomite could mean any number of sexual activities and has been a subject of debate for many years.

For those who are determined to find evidence from the New Testament to support their persecution of homosexuals, the meaning of the word sodomite is clear. It is confusing why Paul would choose a word that is ambiguous and uncommonly refers to homosexuality if he were outlining behavior that prevents an individual from being accepted by God. This word "arsenokoitai" that is translated "sodomites" is only used twice, (I Cor. 6:9; I Tim. 1:10) in the New Testament, both times by Paul. It is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. It is impossible to know with any degree of certainty what Paul meant by this word, and since we cannot ascertain with a high degree of certainty what this word means so we certainly cannot use this verse to persecute millions of non-heterosexuals. A very high standard of certainty must be achieved if one is to use a Bible passage to persecute any person or groups of individuals.

One of my greatest failures in ministry, if not the greatest failure in my ministry, is the harm I caused an innocent young man due to my belief the SBC was correct in their doctrines of rooting out all homosexuals, exposing them and cleansing the world of an abomination. Many years ago, a young and highly talented seminary graduate from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary came to my office and told me he was gay. Robert (not his real name) was married and had one child and was very active in our church. Robert was a Christian and looked forward to being a minister in the Southern Baptist denomination. He told me of his sexual experiences as a young man and later with other gay seminary students. Robert told me the names of highly placed SBC individuals with whom he had sexual relations and how he was greatly frustrated about the ways they silently rose through the SBC hierarchy. To my shame, as Robert spoke, my mind began to work as to how I could destroy his life and ministry, which I did. I had the power to destroy Robert because I worked within a framework that allowed the destruction of any gay and lesbian individual with the full approval of my peers. We believed were being faithful to God and working to preserve the integrity of the Church, protecting our family and America by fighting and rooting out the evil called homosexuality. This is the clear stated position of the SBC and is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible and will continue to be the official attitude until a new and more accurate hermeneutic is welcomed.

Human bondage, the subornation of women, the open and hostile persecution of homosexuals, all have been championed by the Southern Baptists and all have been substantiated by highly selective Bible verses that put people in the position of either rejecting the Bible or rejecting the Southern Baptists. The opposition to homosexuals is deeply rooted within the psyche of Southern Baptists. Those SBC pastors who challenge this attack on homosexuals do so at risk of having their church removed from the SBC. As I write this book, I have been warned by the Southern Baptists to cease speaking favorably of any homosexual. I have received one visit from the Executive Director of the local SBC Association of SBC Churches, and I am under threat of being "disfellowshipped" by my peers under the charge of heresy.

PART V

Jesus and the Absolutism of His Day

Chapter 11

The Hermeneutics of Jesus

Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?

—Jesus of Nazareth (John 3:10).

What was the hermeneutics of Jesus? The hermeneutics of Jesus must be the hermeneutic of conscience. We know for certain Jesus was not a literalist because nowhere in the gospels does he advocate slavery or the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, and Sabbath breakers. Jesus never attempted to reestablish Temple ceremonies nor did He call for the restoration of Law. If Jesus were a literalist, He would have enforced all the holiness code. Jesus confronted the biblical absolutists of His day and chided them for not keeping the Law, since they were picking and choosing like modern day literalists. It is a serious breach of spiritual authority to practice a hermeneutic that would be alien to the hermeneutic practiced by Jesus.

To further provide evidence that erodes confidence in the doctrine of inerrancy, one may point out that if all Scriptures are, in fact, God inspired, authoritative, and absolute in all matters and without any error in the original autographs, then it is a failure on God's part to preserve these Scriptures for our benefit. However, this thought would never be entertained and, therefore, the assumption must be they were not inerrant in the first place, and copies of the autographs are sufficient. This means that it is not necessary to insist the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all things and that a wide range of interpretations are valid. Only by viewing the Bible as without error, absolute in all matters, being a closed revelation makes it possible for Southern Baptists to use the Bible to give spiritual underpinning to the institution of slavery, the persecution of the homosexual, and the subordination of women.

"Hermeneutics" comes from the Greek verb _hermeneuein,_ which means "to interpret" or "to translate." Today it refers to the science, theory and practice of human interpretation (Porter and Robinson 2011, 2). Therefore, if our foundational approach to interpreting the Bible is flawed, then much of our understanding of the Bible will be flawed. The idea of slavery being ordained of God, the subornation of women to men, and the present persecution of the homosexuals all come from a biblical interpretation that was never practiced by Jesus. It must be accepted that it is impossible to understand the original intent of the original authors unless we know who the author was, in what context he or she was writing, and why it was being written and much of that information is simply missing. We can only make educated guesses about much of this information. Yet, even without this essential knowledge, biblical literalism and absolutism asserts itself, committing many atrocities under the authority of God.

Confronting the Pharisee Nicodemus, a literalist of His day, Jesus says, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?" (John 3:10). Nicodemus knew the Law in literalistic fashion and yet did not understand the intent or the purpose of the Law, and Jesus laid the responsibility for knowledge upon Him. It is not enough to know what a passage literally says; the interpreter is responsible for what it means contextually, and it will mean different things to different people at different times and places. The idea that the Bible means what it literally says defies the very principle of understanding and places the modern interpreter in the shoes of Nicodemus. Very few are willing to go through the work to determine what scripture means, and Jesus chastises Nicodemus for that very reason. To the literalist what scripture means is always subordinate to what it says, but to Jesus, what it means is most important.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is the foundation of human misery in many forms throughout the world, from forcing homosexuals to live a life of guilt and shame to women being forced to live a life under male ownership, humiliation, and never being able to become what God has enabled them to become. If current SBC biblical interpretation were enforced, all churches would have male pastors and all women would live under the authority of men; all homosexuals would be legislated out of existence; and there would always be the dread threat of slavery returning under the guise of biblical authority.

We know what the Bible says, but to determine meaning is the task that is fresh to every generation of interpreters as they work to derive meaning for people who no longer live in the first century Greco-Roman world. This must be the case because the original meaning of unknown authors addressing unknown difficulties to unknown audiences is difficult to uncover. One can only surmise at such intended meaning. Based upon such "guesses" there are those who insist in saying, "thus sayeth the Lord" for the sole purpose of the persecution of unprotected classes, while claiming the Word of God as their authority.

The allure of biblical literalism is that anyone can seem an expert in the things of God by quoting the Bible adamantly and authoritatively and saying things such as "the Bible means what it says and says what it means," or, "God said it, I believe it and that is good enough for me." These phrases are common among Southern Baptists. However, as Jesus demonstrates, it is never what a passage says that is important; what is important is how it is being used to bring relief from suffering and to introduce people to a just God and a God of love. Everyone who can read knows what it says; rather, it is what it means that brings life to every person in every culture for all ages. This is the task of the interpreter, to find what it means, not simply to repeat what it says.

An embarrassing Bible passage for Southern Baptists who practice biblical literalism is found in John 13:1-17. This is an excerpt from the story of Jesus washing the feet of His disciples:

So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. Very truly, I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them (John 13:14-17).

This is an embarrassing passage because Southern Baptists do not practice foot washing. The reason given is because they view it as a symbol of humility, and Jesus never intended it to be taken in a literal sense. On the other hand, Baptism, among Southern Baptists is called a symbolic act; yet they insist on a literal application of the symbolism. Southern Baptists require baptism by submersion as a prerequisite to church membership. Baptism, by submersion, is also required before participating in the Lord's Supper:

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming. ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ).

While the ordinance of baptism is referred to as symbolic, Southern Baptists insist in a literal submersion before it can be recognized as legitimate. Any baptism other than full submersion is referred to as "alien," and is not recognized as legitimate. For the literalist, the symbol becomes equivalent to the act itself, never realizing that when the symbol becomes the act; it is no longer a symbol. In regards to foot washing, a doctrine universally rejected by Southern Baptists, it is viewed as a symbol only. This again illustrates the problem with literalism is that it is highly selective and inconsistent.

When the question of why Southern Baptists do not practice foot washing was posed to W.A. Criswell, he replied:

Because the apostles were appointed of the Holy Spirit to interpret the words of our Lord, and we have no record in the Bible that the apostles ever washed feet. So we know it is not an ordinance in the church. We know that our Lord was speaking of the humility, and preferential deference, and personal love, and unselfish care by which all of us should regard one another. (Criswell, Washing Feet 1971).

To Criswell, if there is no record of the Apostles ever washing feet, then foot washing does not apply. This is an argument made from the absence of evidence. This position, accepted among Southern Baptists, is the reason foot washing is not practiced or recognized as a third ordinance of the church (the other two being the Lord's Supper and baptism). Therefore, the absence of Scriptural evidence is just as authoritative as the presence of Scriptural evidence. Again, this exposes the inherit flaw in biblical literalism. It is always selective. It is subject to abuse. And it is willing to make its case from an absence of biblical material when necessary. It is unreasonable to claim as authoritative for matters of faith and practice those things absent from the Bible, just as it unreasonable to state that it is possible to know with one hundred percent certainty the meaning of any passage in the Bible. That being the case, to use the Bible in an absolutist fashion to increase misery and suffering in the life of anyone is difficult to excuse.

Would this type of interpretation of the Scriptures pass the scrutiny of Jesus, and is this how Jesus interpreted the Scriptures of His day? In fact, when Jesus quoted a passage from the LXX or the Hebrew Scriptures, rarely did He back up His references with chapter and verse. Often He did not even mention His sources. Instead, Jesus focused on the meaning of the text. This is the hermeneutic of Jesus. We all know what it says, but now we must determine what it means. As can be seen above, the _Baptist Faith and Message_ quotes sixteen Bible passages in order to support their doctrine of the practice of their two ordinances, a type of confirmation Jesus never found necessary and never used.

The problem of this type of interpretation, "proof texting," is that it absolves the interpreter of all responsibility. In other words, when Southern Baptists refer to homosexuals as an abomination before God and immediately follow up such a declaration by quoting Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination," and by saying, "If you have a problem with this verse, take it up with God," he is absolving himself using a common response for biblical literalists. Never did Jesus ever make a controversial comment and then tell the hearers if they did not like it they could "take it up with God." There is not a single instance of Jesus ever supporting a proposition by quoting a series of proto-Masoretic or LXX texts for support for His teachings.

It might also be said that biblical absolutism and literalism rely on a "dead Bible" in order to function. In other words, any understanding of a passage in the Bible is limited to what the passage meant at the time it was written. As adopted in the SBC _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ , and signed by former president of the SBC and current president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Paige Patterson:

We affirm that God's revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings. ( _The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ 1978).

This document is used as a hiring filter by the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTC), and is presented on their website under the title of "Affirmed Statements," (SWBTS Affirmed Statements 2009) and is widely accepted among Southern Baptists. This document clearly declares all progressive revelation has ended at the completion of the New Testament. Therefore, all biblical interpretation is limited to the original meaning of the text and can never mean anything more. All generations, in all societies must conform to the literal reading of the canon of the Christian Bible. However, a dead Bible has nothing to offer those who seek a living God.

Therefore, the whole Bible, for the Southern Baptist, is static, dead, and there can be no new interpretations. The obvious problem with such a belief is that there are no "original autographs." We only have copies of copies of copies all with discrepancies and differences. In addition, we do not know the original intent of an author writing thousands of years in the past. So, we do not know what the author meant when he wrote "Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord" (Eph. 5:22). But according to the SBC we know that it _must_ mean women should forever obey their husbands (or fathers, brothers) because "what Scripture says, God says," ( _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ 1978).

In the research for this book, I could not find a single source where a Southern Baptist claims the Bible is a living document. In fact, in the over 4,000 words in the _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,_ not one refers to the Bible as a living document. This is interesting because Hebrews 4:12 says, "Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." If the Bible is a static collection of books and letters, and people are forced into its mold, then like many other religions before it, it will fade into irrelevance, having failed to bring fresh new interpretations of the Bible to fresh new people.

It would not be possible to think Jesus would sign the _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,_ as did many prominent Southern Baptists. He would reject the idea that the Bible is limited to its original meaning and has nothing new to say to subsequent generations. If the interpretation is limited to the original _intent_ of the author as written in the _original_ books and epistles, then we can never know with one hundred percent certainty what any passage in the Bible means. The original authors are no longer around to tell us what they meant. So we can never say, "we know" what they meant. While there remains the faintest cloud of doubt why any author of the Bible wrote anything, we cannot say, "Thus sayeth the Lord." The very best we can say is, "this is what we believe to be true," and nothing further. Those who speak with the greatest degree of certainty, and lead others to do likewise, are often the ones who cause the greatest harm. When Jesus said, "You have heard it said ... but I say to you," He clearly rejected any claim to literalism, inerrancy and absolutism.

Jesus dismisses a literal interpretation of Leviticus 24:19-20 "Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered." Without apology, he brings it into the world in which He speaks. For thousands of years, the law of tooth and talon was in effect (and is still in effect in some places in the world) until Jesus lifted it out of the old and into the new. Using the hermeneutic of literalism, this law would still be in force. Jesus is demonstrating that the Word of God is a living document, and it is the task of His ministers to always go about the work of making the Bible alive in the world in which they hope to minister. A close examination of the writing of Paul reveals him following the example of Jesus. Paul was a first century interpreter of the Gospel for those of his generation, not for those who would live thousands of years in the future. That remains the task of the modern interpreters who are tasked to interpret the teachings of Jesus to his or her generation, not to a generation that died two thousand years ago.

It can be said of the hermeneutics of Jesus that it was not dependent on a literal interpretation of the written word but focused instead on human need, the alleviation of suffering and misery, and making available the very real love of God to all the people regardless of religion or other differences. Biblical literalism accomplishes the opposite. It does not alleviate suffering and misery, it creates an environment for suffering and misery, allowing it to take root and spread until it encompasses all who do not accept the parameters established by the authorities of the church. Moreover, biblical literalism and absolutism do not reveal the love of God to those feeling undeserving. Instead, it presents a long list of rules that must be observed in order to be _acceptable_ to God, in a sense validating their feelings of unworthiness. For example, a homosexual who refuses to repent and become heterosexual is to be rejected by God and church. In June 2010, in Orlando Florida, the delegates at the SBC voted to approve a resolution entitled " _On Homosexuality and the United States Military_ " and include the following:

WHEREAS, Homosexual behavior cannot be normalized without rejecting God's moral standards (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and is contrary to moral standards held by nearly every civilized order in human history, including most societies in the world today.

WHEREAS, The Bible describes homosexual behavior as both a contributing cause (Genesis 18:20-21; Leviticus 18:24-28; Jude 7) and a consequence of God's judgment on nations and individuals (Romans 1:18-32).

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, affirm the Bible's declaration that homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered and sinful, and we also affirm the Bible's promise of forgiveness, change, and eternal life to all sinners (including those engaged in homosexual sin) who repent of sin and trust in the saving power of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) (On Homosexuality and the United States Military 2010).

Note that these excerpts all contain biblical passages that are translated literally and as such give little hope to anyone with sexual orientation other than that which was favored in the first century. All homosexuals have been declared by the SBC to be, "intrinsically disordered and sinful," and the SBC argues that the revelation of the love of God revealed through Jesus is available to them only _if_ they repent and give up their orientation in favor of the one accepted by them. This is a strange request, and it is no more likely a man or woman can give up homosexuality than a man or woman can give up heterosexuality. In the Gospels, every person who came to Jesus seeking the truth was enriched by the experience, except the literalists. They were not only angry, but they also sought to kill Him because He dared to place human need over the literal interpretation of the Jewish Law. Another challenge to biblical literalism and absolutism is found in Matthew 12:1-6:

At that time Jesus went through the cornfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, 'Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.' He said to them, 'Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests. Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7But if you had known what this means, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.' (Matt. 12:1-6).

Jesus is illustrating that human need supersedes the letter of the Law, and even demands the intent of the Law is not to make one's life worse but to make it better. Mercy is to be desired even over the observing the Law. Today, this same hermeneutic must be used; it is not what is written in the Bible that is important as much as how it can be used in the same manner Jesus used Scripture. All Scripture must be used to alleviate suffering, not to create it; it should bring healing not impair healing. If heterosexuality is the divine plan of God for all humanity, then God will tend to all people in due time and does not need an evangelical Gestapo to ferret out all those whom they might think unworthy of His love.

If further evidence is needed to understand the method Jesus used in interpreting the scriptures of His day, we need look no further than the story of an expert in religious Law asking Jesus what is the most important teaching in the Law. Jesus responds,

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets' (Matt. 22:34-40).

There is no room for literalism, absolutism, inerrancy or fundamentalism in the hermeneutics of Jesus. At the heart of the method of interpretation Jesus used was love, love for God, love for self, and love for others. Any other hermeneutic, no matter how widely accepted and praised, falls short of the mark Jesus established and would be as quickly condemned by Him as inadequate as was the hermeneutics of the literalists of His day.

PART VI

New Models of Interpretation for the Future

Chapter 12

Context, Consistency and Common Sense

There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong... _for him_.

—Fredrick Douglas

Fredrick Douglas, a former slave who was invited in 1852, to speak at the Corinthian Hall in Rochester, New York, spoke these words, "There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong... _for him,"_ revealing the glaring flaw of biblical literalism and absolutism. The Southern Baptists had complete confidence the Bible sanctioned the enslavement of Africans and quoted many verses in the Old and New Testament to substantiate their claim. They were convinced slavery was permissible and suitable for Africans, since they were supposedly born of the linage of Ham, which made their slavery the will of God. However, Southern Baptists were equally certain that under no circumstance should they themselves, or their descendants, be subject to the same treatment; slavery was for others not for them.

This particular type of biblically supported human suffering inflicted upon others can only come from a malformed biblical hermeneutic. If the Bible truly allowed and encouraged such horrific treatment of others, then it might be best if God's name was not associated with the Bible at all. This abuse towards Africans, women, and homosexuals can only come from a literal reading of the Bible while completely ignoring common sense, context, and consistency in interpretation. In one brief statement Frederick Douglas exposes the great error of biblical literalism and absolutism in that it violates common sense and causes a "just" God to demand injustice.

The official SBC position on the Bible, as understood from their position papers, the _Baptist Faith and Message,_ SBC resolutions, and their use of the _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ , is that the Bible is without error, absolute, and the final word on all matters spiritual or otherwise. The saying common among Southern Baptists, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," communicates allegiance to the Scriptures being the inerrant, authoritative Word of God. This allegiance is used as a discriminator to determine one's commitment to the cause of Christ and is used to identify a level of spiritual fitness to fill the office of pastor. Currently, it is difficult if not impossible to find employment within the SBC if you do not adhere to the teachings outlined in the _Baptist Faith and Message_ with an emphasis on Article I, The Scriptures:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ).

This is a complete commitment to a dangerous hermeneutic, one that has led to much error in the past and has been the root cause of untold suffering. Nevertheless, regardless of the results in the past, this same model is still being used at a great detriment to women and non-heterosexuals. If we compared this approach of determining truth to the scientific method we can see where the faults lie. The purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate error through constant testing; the applying tests to determine what is true and what is false. This leads to improving prior theories or hypothesis or invalidating them altogether. This rigorous testing method is used to great success and helps to eliminate hypothesis that are false. When a new hypothesis is presented, that hypothesis in turn becomes subject to rigorous testing methods. Not a single scientific idea is exempt from this process of falsification. Being constantly subject to falsification determines the validity and strength of a hypothesis. In science there is no theory that is not subject to challenge.

This approach should be applied to biblical hermeneutics in order that those approaches to biblical interpretation that cause human suffering might be eliminated. Every statement made by religious authorities should be subject to falsification. Yet religion by its very nature resists this process of falsification based on the idea that faith does not need validation. This is simply endorsing the idea that ignorance is acceptable if it is within a religious context. It is the process of falsification that allows science to improve and advance year after year, and it is religion's resistance to falsification that all allows it to remain firmly rooted in the Bronze Age. A new model for biblical interpretation should contain a mechanism for improvement through constant testing and questioning and a willingness to replace the old with the new. Without this mechanism the Bible will always be used to impose the teachings of the long ago past upon the modern world.

"Context is king," was a phrase I heard while a seminary student at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, in Mill Valley, California. The Bible lends itself to abuse if one reads it apart from its context. The Bible crosses vast distances of time, culture, and many ancient languages before it reaches the modern reader, and the journey itself cannot be ignored. The authors of the Bible were not writing books, histories, poetry, letters, law, or apocalyptic mysteries for those who would live thousands of years in the future. They were writing for the people in the same age in which they lived. Given this fact it is impossible to understand this material without understanding the context in which it was written.

By context, I mean the date written, intended audience, culture of the recipients, culture of the author, intent of the author, type of literature, place written, place received, political context, religious context, why it was written, who wrote it, does it have a narrow audience or a greater audience, did the author intend for his or her written words to be read by anyone outside the intended recipients, did the author consider himself or herself to be inspired and the work is without error, and all other elements that would recreate the original setting of the book or epistle.

Without context there can be limited understanding and even with a thorough reconstructing of the context, it is still impossible to gain understanding with one hundred percent probability. Even if we could reconstruct the context, it still would not translate directly into our context. Never can there be a thorough reconstructing of events thousands of years old that can, with one hundred percent certainty, lead to any absolute position, especially an absolutist position that says: all homosexuals must live in perpetual shame, all women are to be subject to their male counterparts, and all Africans are born into slavery as they are children of Ham. Even if it were to allow for a partial reconstruction of context, still it could not justify any argument for the support of evil of any kind based upon such limited understanding.

When we look at the context of the Bible as a whole, there are some things forever lost to history and some things impossible to know with any degree of certainty. For example, it is impossible to determine who wrote most of the books of the Bible. Unless a book of the Bible specifically states who the author is, in the original manuscripts, then we do not know who the author is, and since we do not have the original manuscripts, then the fact of authorship can never be established. It cannot be established that even the original autographs identify the author. While informed assertion may be made about authorship, there can never be anything conclusive, and no matter how informed an assertion may be, it remains an assertion.

Moreover, we do not know the mind of the author. Why any author of the Bible wrote what they did is a question that can never be asked because the authors are not available to explain themselves. Therefore, we are at a great disadvantage to know with certainty anything of consequence in the Bible, much less claim to know a fact to the degree we can claim something to be absolute. The best any interpreter of the Bible can say is, "I think the author of this passage might be saying," and that is not enough to support any form of absolutism.

Much of the historical context of the New Testament has been lost because early church authorities did not think it was important enough at the time to preserve it. Most people were illiterate, and the cost of employing professional scribes did not justify the expense to make records for future introspection. Or, perhaps it was recorded and has since been lost. The same may be said for the religious, political, and cultural context, we do not even have an exhaustive lexicon to determine meaning in the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and others without error. To complicate matters more, even if we did have a complete lexicon of the ancient languages, we would not know _how_ those words were being used. In languages there are two forms, lexical and common usage. Common usage was the one used for communication, including writing. Therefore, even if we know with complete clarity what each word means in their lexical form we may still be in the dark as to how the author is using the words in common usage. When we look at a passage we always must ask, "I know what it says, but what does it mean."

The presence of hapax legomenon, words that appear only once, in the Testaments undergird the fact that it is not possible to establish context with confidence. It is estimated there are over one thousand five hundred of these words in the Old Testament, (The Jewish Encyclopedia) and nearly seven hundred in the New Testament, (Gangel 1984, 860). The only way these words can be translated is within the context of the rest of the material where it is found. In other words, it is largely a guess. Absolutism and inerrancy cannot rest on a best guess approach. It can never be said, "thus sayeth the Lord God" on any topic, much less injurious topics, on a best guess basis.

Context can never be one hundred percent reconstructed. Since we cannot retrieve the context completely, it is impossible to make any absolute statements. At best we can make a well researched guess based on the highest likelihood, or the greatest probability. Basing biblical interpretation within context eliminates any wisdom in saying "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." The best one can say is, "the Bible might say ... based on what evidence we currently have, and I believe it, but I am always open to new evidence in the future." This is the balanced approached that is desperately needed and prevents the errors of the past from reoccurring. Being able to publicly state that it is impossible to reconstruct the context of any book or epistle in the entire Bible with a hundred percent certainty, and thus no absolute statements from these books and epistles can be ascertained, would be an important milestone for the SBC. Such an approach would have to lead toward the abandonment of the persecution of homosexuals and an end of the subservience of women.

Some will raise the question: If one cannot know anything with one hundred percent certainty, then how can we know anything to be true? First, it is a fact that it is impossible to know anything with a one hundred percent certainty; second, if it were possible to understand all the missing components of each book and epistle in the Bible, then at best one could see how religion operated in the far distant past in a culture far removed from ours. One could see how _they_ justified slavery, executed homosexuals, and demeaned women, but nowhere would you find justification to turn our present world into the world in which they lived. If you were so compelled, which age would you choose: the era of Noah, Abram, Israel during their wilderness wanderings, Israel during their captivity, or the first century world of the Greco-Roman period? This is what biblical literalism attempts to do, and has done. It attempts to bring the standards of the ancient world into modern society. A new hermeneutic would be one that is willing to see the pitfalls of the past and work to avoid them in the present rather than impose the failures of the past on the present and future.

The model of understanding the Bible based on context may be interpreted as undermining biblical authority. This is an often heard statement among Southern Baptists, that any attempt to question authorship, date written, or contemporary applicability, is an attack on the authority of the Bible. The phrase "authority of the Bible" is widely used and universally accepted among Southern Baptists. But while the term "biblical authority" is constantly used, there seems to be no clear or consistent definition as to what it means. It seems to mean the entire Bible has authority over the lives of all people in the world. If this is truly the case, then there is a problem. If context is the key to understanding what any passage means and it is not possible to reconstruct the context of any passage with any high degree of certainty, then how is it possible for the Bible to be authoritative? The authority of the Bible cannot be imposed on others by simple decree. The very idea that there is a powerful, irresistible authority that makes a claim on the lives of all living things and that authority will be interpreted by religious authorities without concern for the welfare of all people is untenable. The followers of Mohammad make the same claim for their religion. Southern Baptists feel completely comfortable rejecting the authority of the Koran while claiming universal authority for the Bible. If there is a universal authority, it can only be determined through the reconstruction of context; and therefore, to acknowledge the limitations of contextual reconstructions is not an attack on the authority of the Bible, it is an acknowledgement of an evident and demonstrable fact.

It became much easier for the Southern Baptist to participate in slavery, to condemn homosexuals, and to relegate women into the servants of men when they could say, "thus sayeth the Lord God," but it is impossible to participate in such atrocities when the most they can say is, " _maybe_ God wants Africans to be slaves in perpetuity, _maybe_ homosexuals are sinners, and _maybe_ women are servants of men." The fact that context can never be restored should be the fatal blow to such absolutist ideas and doctrines. Any court of law that would sentence a person to prison based on the statement "the accused _might_ have committed the crime" would be intolerable. The point is, we do not know enough to condemn anyone for anything based on the Bible. Each person should be allowed to discover God for himself or herself and not have it mandated by others.

While writing this book, I spoke with a young man who had met with a pulpit committee. I asked him how it went, and he replied, "I told them all that I knew to be true." I looked at him and said, "Are you sure you know those things to be true?" He replied, "Well, I believe them to be true." This is what we need in a new model of hermeneutics. This model says everything we think we know about God and the Bible is based on what we believe, and belief is always based on subjectivity and our own personal context and social location.

The idea of interpreting everything in the Bible within it proper context is not a new approach. The problem is that it is often used selectively. If a contextual reading of the Bible is essential to gaining clearer understanding of what is being communicated then it must be used consistently without bias throughout the entire Bible.

Along with context, Christians must incorporate consistency as an essential component of a sound biblical hermeneutic. One of the more evident flaws of literalism is that it is always selective and the method of selection is never consistent. To understand how literalism is selective, one might consider polygamy. Polygamy, having more than one wife, was practiced throughout the entire history of the Bible. A very strong case can be made for the practice of polygamy today, using the Bible, and employing the same literal method of interpretation that was used for the defense of slavery. It cannot be denied that Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, and many others had multiple wives. If Abraham had more than one wife, then according to a literalist perspective, it cannot be said to be sin. This was the same argument made by the advocates of slavery. If slavery was "sanctioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New" then the same could be said of polygamy, (Fuller, 1885). Yet in the same period when Southern Baptists preachers were declaring the divine justification for slavery, there was not a single voice advocating for polygamy.

If Abraham had more than one wife, then according to a literalist perspective, it cannot be said to be sin. King David, the "apple of God's eye" (Ps. 17:8), also had multiple wives, and yet he was not reprehended by God for this act, nor was Solomon for all his hundreds of wives. In fact, one could argue that Solomon, the wisest of all living (I Kings 10:24), demonstrates the validly of polygamy. And this practice of polygamy is never repudiated in the New Testament. In fact, it is affirmed in the Pastoral Epistles where church leadership is limited to those of one wife, indicating that polygamy _was_ practiced among Christians (I Tim. 3:2). One could also make sound arguments that it is better for the women because it provided them with security, protection and a male provider. Those wishing to argue a literalist position could point out that polygamy was practiced throughout the age of the Bible and as long as the wives are treated without cruelty it is an institution that should accepted.

These are all the same arguments that were used to advance slavery by Southern Baptist preachers but were not used to advance polygamy. Why was it acceptable to read of the account of Abraham and his slaves and opt for a literal interpretation of that part, and then to read of the multiple wives of Abraham and reject a literal reading of that part? Biblical literalism is a terribly flawed system of interpretation because it is highly selective. There is no system of literalism that is practiced anywhere, even in its most extreme form, which is not highly selective. Selectivity alone should invalidate biblical literalism as a legitimate form of biblical interpretation.

A better method of interpretation would be one that demands the highest level of consistency. Whatever method of biblical interpretation one chooses to use, there must be a system of consistency in order to have any valid argument of authority one could trust to be reliable. If an interpreter were inconsistent in his or her approach to the Bible, one would be suspicious as to why a particular passage deserves a special reading that is not afforded to all other passages. Southern Baptists are positive that God despises all homosexuals, but no one dares to call for their execution as demanded in the Holiness Code (Lev. 20:13). Why does this inconsistency go uncontested? The Leviticus Law is clear on this matter; all homosexual men are to be executed: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them," (Lev. 20:13). It is to make the statement that every male homosexual is an abomination to God and withhold the second part of that passage, that they must be executed.

Fundamentalism, literalism, and absolutism break down under the test of consistency. The reason they fail the test of consistency is there is no revealing what in the Bible is history, prose, song, metaphor, parable, simile, symbol, figurative language, oxymoron, irony, rhetorical speech, hyperbole, simile, type, proverb, and the many other elements of communication. Therefore, without this "key" to understanding, it is impossible to say that anything should be taken literally because there is the possibility that it might be allegorical, metaphorical, poetry, prophetic material, or symbolic. As long as there exists the smallest degree of possibility that a passage might be something other than literal, it is not possible to say, "Thus sayeth the Lord." It is more accurate and helpful to say, "I am not sure, but I _think_ this passage might mean this...." This is the approach that can be used consistently throughout the Bible, and it is an approach that can be used to bring about the best for all people in all societies for all time. If anyone wishes to use the Bible to argue for slavery, persecute homosexuals, and demean women, then they have to demonstrate they have the ability to interpret the Bible with one hundred percent certainty, one hundred percent of the time, without error. It is a high standard and impossible to achieve, but in order to use God's authority to injure others, that standard must be met. It is too easy to turn the Bible into a tool for persecution when the only standard for authoritative interpretation rests on the desire of the interpreter. In those cases, the Bible is not the authority and neither is God; the authority rests solely with the interpreter when he or she says, "Thus sayeth the Lord God" based on evidence that does not exist or evidence that cannot be demonstrate to be without debate. The burden of proof lay with the one making the claim and because the stakes are high the proof must be convincingly presented.

Biblical scholars have always strived to be consistent in their approach to biblical interpretation. However, this dedication to consistency in biblical interpretation tends to break down at the denominational level, where the motivations differ. Truth is the goal of the scholar whereas the preservation and the advancement of the denomination is often the goal of those who lead religious institutions.

Then there is common sense. If context is king, then common sense is queen of biblical interpretation. It seems common sense has a lower value when it comes to biblical interpretation if it opposes certain doctrines of Southern Baptists. It is as if common sense is in opposition to divine revelation and so must be ignored. However, the best arguments made against slavery, were made from the perspective of common sense. There were no arguments being made from the Bible because the Bible makes a very clear case _for_ slavery. It was common sense that seemed to gain the widest consensus that slavery was appalling, regardless how convincing were the biblical argument in its favor. When common sense trumps biblical authority, it reveals the simple fact that the method of interpretation used to justify evil is false. It was always a mistake to try to argue against slavery using the Bible, but arguments using common sense were enough to sway many to the positions held by the abolitionists. Southern Baptists believe if the Bible did not exist, we would have no basis for morality. In a sense this is what the Southern Baptists are declaring in the _Baptist Faith and Message_ when they state:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. ( _Baptist Faith and Message_ ).

According to this statement, the Bible _is_ the "supreme standard" that governs all human conduct. Without the Bible, there would be no basis for morality, and everyone would do as one pleased. Other verses are used to strengthen this argument such as: "the heart is deceitful above all things" (Jer. 17:9), "lean not unto your own understanding" (Prov. 3:5), and "there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death" (Prov. 14:12). If you have the Bible, then there is no need for common sense; common sense can be a hindrance to divine guidance and instruction. But if this were true, morality would only be found in cultures where the Bible is read, and yet morality is found in all cultures and is not exclusive to Christianity.

Common sense places all people on common ground. There are no religious requirements; common sense universally permeates all religions and those who subscribe to no religions. Common sense in inherent in all people regardless of age, gender, culture, nationality or any other discriminator. This universal method of understanding must be an integral component of biblical hermeneutics in order to prevent the use of the Bible to lead people to act against accepted and recognized moral principles.

Under the method of biblical interpretation currently used by Southern Baptists, there are instances where the Bible teaches something that defies common sense. For example, the SBC's general prohibition on homosexuals and homosexuality is based on the idea that God is intently interested in our sexuality. This makes for a strange picture of God: why would God be concerned with any relationship that harms no one? It conflicts with common sense that God would hate any relationship that is affirming, loving, and healthy. But according to a literal hermeneutic, homosexuals are an abomination. The reason why we are seeing the American public slowly change their attitudes on homosexuals and homosexuality is because common sense is winning the argument, just as it did among many abolitionists.

Common sense validates a biblical teaching as authentic. Any doctrine that asks us to set aside common sense should be highly suspect. The institution of slavery, the idea that God hates homosexuals, and the subornation of women are in violation of universal common sense. This is why the argument for slavery ended; it was a gross violation of common sense. This is why the persecution of homosexuals and the demeaning of women will eventually cease; it offends the common sense of all people. It just feels intuitively wrong to cause people to suffer and live incomplete shameful lives because some say it is "the will of God."

Common sense as a hermeneutical tool is invaluable, and it does not take years of study to become an exceptional interpreter of the Bible using it. Common sense as a guide is a safe method, as it will never lead to gross misapplication of any Bible verse that would violate simple human decencies. When using common sense, it becomes easy to avoid any form of extremism and provides unanswerable challenges to those who do. Common sense has been used as a tool in biblical interpretation by scholars for thousands of years and has provided much insight on many difficult passages.

To ignore these basic tools while attempting to understand the Bible will always lead to catastrophic ends. Religion carries with it a certain power not found in any other discipline, as religious authorities are believed, respected and given the benefit of doubt, whether they deserve it or not. This vests in them considerable power which can be used toward ill ends. The utilization of common sense is one of the safeguards we have against oppressive dogma.

Chapter 13

Relativism vs. Absolutism

Sir, as long as the first chapter of the Book of Romans is in the Bible, and as long as the city of Sodom remains under the judgment of God, sodomy and homosexuality is a disgrace and a reproach to any nation and to any people.

—Rev. W.A Criswell

Absolutism, in the sense it is used among Southern Baptists, is used to mean that all human behavior is regulated by instructions found in the Bible. This belief is without debate. The Bible has the final say on all things social, scientific, historical, and religious. All external claims must be subordinate to the revealed truth of God as found in the Bible. If, for example, science provides irrefutable evidence the age of the universe is over thirteen billion years old, and the Bible says the universe is six thousand years old, then the biblical age is correct. If the Bible says homosexuals are an abomination to God, then it does not matter if a same sex relationship is a long term, stable and healthy relationship, it is still despised by God. If the Bible says a woman cannot be a bishop of a church in the first century, then she cannot be a bishop in the 21st century either. These are all statements of absolutism. Whatever it says in the Bible is true for all people for all times under all circumstances without exception. This, for Southern Baptists, is what is called "biblical authority."

Until biblical absolutism is abandoned, the practice of limiting the role of women in ministry, the home, and society will continue, and homosexuals will continue to be shunned and shamed. The following sheds light on any plans of the SBC to abandon their absolute view of biblical authority and their right to impose this on others:

Report of the Presidential Theological Study Committee

Adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention - Meeting in Session June, 1994

Part II Article One - Holy Scripture

Southern Baptists have affirmed repeatedly and decisively an unswerving commitment to the divine inspiration and truthfulness of Holy Scripture, the Word of God revealed in written form. We believe that what the Bible says, God says. What the Bible says happened, really happened. Every miracle, every event, in every one of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments is true and trustworthy. In 1900, James M. Frost, first president of the Baptist Sunday School Board, declared: "We accept the Scriptures as an all-sufficient and infallible rule of faith and practice, and insist upon the absolute inerrancy and sole authority of the Word of God. We recognize at this point no room for division, either of practice or belief, or even sentiment. More and more we must come to feel as the deepest and mightiest power of our conviction that a 'thus saith the Lord' is the end of all controversy." (Reformed Reader 1994).

The Baptist Faith and Message affirms this high view of Scripture by declaring that the Bible "has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error, for its matter." The chairman of the committee who drafted this statement, Herschel Hobbs, explained this phrase by reference to II Timothy 3:16 which says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." He explained: "The Greek New Testament reads 'all'—without the definite article and that means every single part of the whole is God-breathed. And a God of truth does not breathe error."  
In 1986, the presidents of the six SBC seminaries issued the Glorieta Statement which affirmed the "infallible power and binding authority" of the Bible, declaring it to be "not errant in any area of reality" (SBC Glorietta Statement, 1986). The miracles of the Old and New Testaments were described as "historical evidences of God's judgment, love and redemption."   
In 1987, the SBC Peace Committee called upon Southern Baptist institutions to recruit faculty and staff who clearly reflect the dominant convictions and beliefs of Southern Baptists concerning the factual character and historicity of the Bible in such matters as (1) the direct creation of humankind including Adam and Eve as real persons; (2) the actual authorship of biblical writings as attributed by Scripture itself; (3) the supernatural character of the biblical miracles which occurred as factual events in space and time; (4) the historical accuracy of biblical narratives which occurred precisely as the text of Scripture indicates (SBC Glorietta Statement 1987).  
In 1991, the Baptist Sunday School Board published the first volume of the New American Commentary, a projected 40-volume series of theological exposition on every book of the Bible. The commentary was intended to reflect a "commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture" and "the classic Christian tradition." _The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ was adopted as a guideline more fully expressing for writers the intent of Article I of _The Baptist Faith and Message_ :

We commend to all Baptist educational institutions and agencies the Report of the Peace Committee (1987), the _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_ (1978) and the _Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics_ (1982) as biblically grounded and sound guides worthy of respect in setting forth a high view of Scripture. We encourage them to cultivate a biblical world view in all disciplines of learning and to pursue a reverent, believing approach to biblical scholarship that is both exegetically honest and theologically sound. There need be no contradiction between "firm faith and free research" as long as both are exercised under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and in full confidence of the truthfulness of His Word. (Presidential Theological Committee 1994).

This view is further confirmed in the _Chicago Statement of Biblical Authority_ , the _Baptist Faith and Message_ , the Glorieta Statement _,_ and numerous resolutions and position papers. For Southern Baptists, the Bible for all people at all times and under all circumstances will be authoritative and absolute. This means, however, that prior to the final canonization of the Christian Bible, there was no absolute standard to govern behavior; everyone was free to determine what was right and what was wrong using their own conscience. Millions of people have lived and died having never seen a Bible, and yet they have had lives of purpose and meaning. To insist the Bible is the regulator of all human behavior is unsustainable due to the fact most of the people in the world do not consider it authoritative and yet continue to live lives not unlike those who consider the Bible to be authoritative. The Bible can only be absolute to absolutists, and this view should not be imposed on others against their will. Southern Baptists link this view of biblical absolutism with evangelism; therefore, all new disciples must share the same view of inerrancy and absolutism or they will be considered heretics who undermine the "authority of God's Word."

This deformed view of the Bible gave license to enslave Africans; gives license to tell a same sex couple they are despised and rejected by God and they will spend an eternity in hell unless they repent; and rationalizes the view that women will always be unfit for pastoral ministries and must all ways be subservient to men. What appears to be a lofty view of the Bible is nothing but a flawed interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is filled with errors. It is not inerrant, and the context can never be reconstructed with one hundred percent certainty. Therefore, no absolute statements can be made on a single passage. To insist the Bible is inerrant, absolute, and authoritative causes immeasurable harm.

One alternative to biblical absolutism is biblical relativism. Biblical relativism means that all biblical truth is subject to its current context. In other words, it considers what the Bible means to its modern readers. Absolutism means one message for all readers for all time under all circumstances. Relativism suggests that what was true in a first century Greco-Roman society may not hold true in 21st century American society. This is what makes the Bible a living, as opposed to a static, document. The Bible as a living, vital and changing book(s) it can speak to all people of all times in terms that is relevant to their age and to their context. Al Stefanelli, the Georgia State Director of American Atheists makes the following observation regarding Christianity:

Whenever I hear a believer state, in one fashion or another, " _God said it, I believe it, that settles it,"_ I know that there is an impending breakdown in the likelihood that a reasonable, rational, intelligent and diplomatic conversation is going to take place. Those oh-so non-judgmental patrons of Christianity, Islam and Judaism who believe that their god has given strict, unbending, draconian, bronze-age commands on certain issues land them squarely on the flat, worn-out faces of the brick-walls we know as ignorance and intolerance. Throw in a dose of hatred and bigotry, for good measure.

Many times these beliefs, indoctrinations and superstitions end up with horrific results against humanity, either directly or indirectly. I've got permanent palm prints on my face from my own hands as a result of being told by some of these kooks that, under no uncertain terms, they fervently believe that Homosexuals should be killed, Cross-dressers should be killed, Adulterers should be killed, Members of other religions should be killed, Members of no religions should be killed, Children should be beaten with sticks, Television is the gateway to hell, The Internet is the gateway to hell, The movies are the gateway to hell, Women are the gateway to hell, Dead babies will burn in hell forever, Mentally ill people will burn in hell forever, People who drink alcohol will burn in hell forever, People who drink coffee or tea will burn in hell forever, Eating certain foods will send you to burn in hell forever, Everyone "else" will burn in hell forever, A blood transfusion will get you and your soul annihilated, Women should not be allowed to own property, Women should not be allowed to vote, Women should stay at home and have babies, Women should always be submissive to their husbands, A husband has the right to beat his wife, A husband has the right to rape his wife, A husband has the right to have more than one wife, A husband has the right to a pre-pubescent wife, Pedophilia is the fault of atheists and secularists, Obama is the Anti-Christ and should be destroyed, The United States was founded as a Christian Nation, The <insert holy book> is the only true word of god, The earth is 6000 years old, Satan made it look older, The earth is 6000 years old, God made it look older, Evolution was invented by Satan, evolutionists worship him, Members of other religions are insane and deluded, Members of no religion are insane and deluded, There is no such thing as mental illnesses; it is just the results of living in sin, Only god and faith can be trusted for healing (thousands of children die each year as a result), The earth is really flat (yes, these people still exist), Black people are cursed by god to forever be servants and slaves, Some people should be burned alive, Some people should be tortured, then burned alive. (Stefanelli 2011).

All these accusations from Mr. Stefanelli ring true regarding Christians because with each accusation made, a Bible passage comes to mind suggesting such beliefs. And Southern Baptists have actually seen some of these beliefs in practice. They seem absurd, yet all of the above statements come from an inerrant, literal and absolutist hermeneutic. The only alternative to such abuse is to adopt some form of relativism, which the SBC seems to be firmly entrenched against. In a SBC resolution entitled, _A Resolution on Secular Humanism_ , adopted in 1984, relativism is linked with humanism making the claim that:

A generation that is academically encouraged to view divine creation as myth and evolution as fact cannot long escape the further illusion that human rights endowed by the Creator are likewise mythical, thus accelerating the drift to personal relativism and social instability in contemporary life. (Resolution on Secular Humanism 1984).

Personal relativism is the application of the teachings found in the Bible to one's personal context and cultural context. It is a simple matter to see that laws in one part of the world are utterly absurd in other parts of the world. Currently, in the Philippines, adultery is still a crime that will result in a mandatory seven year prison sentence. I recall on Sundays all across the United States the stores used to be closed in honor of the Lord's Day. It was not too long ago that Southern Baptists considered "mixed bathing" (boys and girls being in the swimming pool at the same time) a sin. The point is that in the world in which we live, there are no universal laws that apply to all people at all times under all circumstances. When Southern Baptists try to force universal laws upon people and claim that they have divine origin, the consequences are terrible and cause the image of God to be distorted. It is no wonder that "no belief" is the fasted growing identity in the United States according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center. (Pew Research 2012).

A new hermeneutic is needed for the SBC to become relevant in an ever changing world and to be able to build safeguards against the terrible mistakes of using the authority of God for the advancement of oppression. A hermeneutic is needed that includes relativism, common sense, consistency, and a willingness to admit that much of the context of the Bible has been forever lost to the annals of history. This hermeneutic will only claim that "This passage might say," which is a far cry from the literalist voice, "Thus sayeth the Lord."

CONCLUSION

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— Declaration of Independence: Preamble, 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men _and_ women are created equal.

— Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1848

Biblical absolutism depends upon the concept that all men and women are created equal. If all are created equal, then there can be one truth, one law, one universal overlaying system of morality, divinely sanctioned, that can be applied uniformly to all people of all places and for all time. The problem, however, is that this is not the case in practice. The evident truth is that no one is created equal much less every single living person. If we are not equal, then there cannot be one law, one universal overlaying system of morality, divinely sanctioned, that can be applied uniformly to all people of all places of all time. The idea we are all created equal has always been utopic; however, it is still often quoted as a founding principle of the United States, and it is an essential component of biblical absolutism. For example, it is easy for the one who has abundant resources to follow the command "thou shalt not steal" but it is quite another matter for the one who is starving and watching his/her children starve (Ex. 20:12).

All are born into differing circumstances, and the Gospel should be applicable to each of these individuals in their own distinct and unique circumstances. Millions every year are born into a world of hunger and deprivation, and they live brief miserable lives. Others are born into affluence with easy access to clean water, abundant food, shelter, and safety. Some are born into families that are dysfunctional and suffer a life of abuse while others are born into homes full of love and stability. Some are born with a skin color in times and places that cause them to be denied simple human rights afforded to others of another skin color. Women may be born into societies that subject them to lifetimes of servitude to their male counterparts. Homosexuals may be born into societies where the prevailing opinion is that they should repent, before they bring the judgment of God on the whole nation; at best, they are expected to live their lives in shame and obscurity. We are not created equal; and thus, we are not treated equal. Sadly, the Bible has been used in the past, and is being used in the present, to enhance inequality and magnify our differences.

After Thomas Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence containing the words "all men are created equal," he went home to his estate, Monticello, where he owned over one hundred and seventy slaves. Equality was as mythical then as it is today. Biblical absolutism is built upon this myth. In order for the Bible to be a book for the benefit of all people, it must be allowed to speak broadly in relativistic terms, while we strive to establish context as much as is possible, and using consistency common sense as our guide.

George Orwell in his book _Animal Farm: A Fairy Story_ said it best when others challenged the ruling farm animal about the previously understood equality of all farm animals. To this challenge, he replied, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" (Orwell 1945, 133). This oxymoronic argument embodies the hermeneutic of the Southern Baptists. All people are created equal, but some are more equal than others. This explains why white Southern Baptist slave owners were superior to the cursed children of Ham, why men are the "head" of women, and why heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals. We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others.

Religion is a powerful institution of the mind. Religious authorities have the ability to make people believe the unbelievable and to do the unimaginable. Charles Darwin, in _The Descent of Man_ wrote, "I will not in my own person violate the dignity of humanity" (Darwin 1876, 110). How is it possible that this man, who Southern Baptists consider to be one of the most evil men of all history, is able to cherish human dignity and put to shame those who strip others of this fundamental right? Somehow, Charles Darwin was able to see and cherish the dignity of humanity, while some who follow the teachings of Jesus and claim authority from God seem to struggle in this accomplishment.

Adrian Rogers, former president of the SBC, in a sermon delivered on July 7, 2003, entitled "Why I Reject Evolution," outlined why Southern Baptists have been taught to despise Charles Darwin:

Now, here's the second reason, therefore, that I reject evolution: I reject evolution— and the next two points will be shorter, so don't get too nervous, I reject evolution for moral reasons, for moral reasons.

Now, there were two atheists, who lived in the time of Darwin, who believed Darwin's teaching and locked onto it. One was a man named Nietzsche, and the other was a man named Karl Marx. From Nietzsche we got Nazism. Hitler was a student of Nietzsche, who was a student of Charles Darwin. The other was Karl Marx. Karl Marx was the father of Communism, also a student of Darwin. And, you see, it's easy to understand, if there is no God, how something like Communism, which is based on Godlessness, and Nazism, which is based on raw brutality, could come. People talk about all those who've died in religious wars and many have, and that's tragic. But, I want to say that far more multiplied many more; millions, and millions, and multiplied millions have died not because of religion, but because of anti-godly evolution. You think of those who were destroyed by Nazi Germany. Think of the gas camps. Think of the multiplied millions that were put to death under Stalin and the others, the atrocity of Communism. Well, why that? Why these immoral things? Well, if you believe that you came from animals, if you believe that everything is an accident, ultimately, there can be no standard of right or wrong. You teach people that they've come from animals; and, after a while, they'll begin to live like animals. It follows as night follows day. What do animals live for? Self-gratification, self-preservation, self-propagation. And, that's what the average American is living for. But, the Bible teaches that man did not spring from the beast; he is headed toward the Beast that is, the Antichrist. (Rogers, 2003).

Southern Baptists believe, as reflected in the opinion of Adrian Rogers that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution led to Communism, Nazism, and the Holocaust. It is common to hear among Southern Baptists that much evil in the world can be traced back to the one man, Charles Darwin. The teaching of the theories of Charles Darwin has been linked to adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality and atheism (Butt 2008).

I choose this example of Charles Darwin, as portrayed by the SBC, as the enemy of the Christian faith to illustrate the fact that if Southern Baptists applied Darwin's statement, "I will not in my own person violate the dignity of humanity," there would never have been any support of and participation in the institutionalized slavery of Africans by the Baptists. The ability to look at Africans and see the dignity that resides in each man and woman would cause complete reevaluation of the prevailing biblical literalism that was being practiced. In addition, the current denigration of women and the persecution of the homosexuals could not occur today if we choose a worldview like that of Darwin, to never violate the human dignity of a single person. A woman, a man, a homosexual, a heterosexual all share a common human dignity and, as such, it is unnatural, a violation of common sense, for any category of humanity to deny this dignity to another.

In this book, I presented the idea that common sense must be foundational to any method of biblical interpretation. Common sense points to the fact there is a base level of human dignity that is the right of every human being and must be demanded on behalf of those who have been disenfranchised for so long they have no voice. If in any degree we are all created equal, it is that we are all _entitled_ to the same degree of dignity. There is one God, one image, and all are created in that image. This is powerful evidence that all are entitled to the same degree of dignity. To deny another, by law or doctrine, that which they are entitled to by Divine decree is a crime against God and humanity.

Because I refuse to join the SBC chorus against homosexuals, a church elder said, "I think you are gay, and that is why you will not call it an abomination." I gave no response. To see clearly requires nothing but a willingness to see clearly. It should be self-evident that gender identification, sexual preference, or the color of a person's skin means nothing to the creator God. It should be self-evident that God does not prefer heterosexuals to homosexuals or that He will not allow any woman under any circumstance to pastor any church at any time.

Often, while writing this book, I thought if the judgment of God were to fall upon this nation for any reason, it would be due to the use of the Bible to justify slavery, the persecution of homosexuals, and the keeping women as servants and helpmates to men. But this will never occur because God's judgment would fall on the innocent as well as the guilty. Therefore, it falls upon God's ministers to correct this wrong and make Christianity available to all people, not just heterosexuals, and open up the pastoral ministries to women as well as men.

What is interesting is that Southern Baptists often talk of God judging this nation because of homosexuals while forgetting their very evil of providing spiritual authority for the defense of slavery. If God did not judge this nation because of its participating in slavery, there is little likelihood God will judge America because of homosexuals.

Nothing good can come from the evils of slavery, the demeaning of women, and the persecuting of homosexuals. The injustice of these situations should create a desire to change. We know how to change; the only thing that is lacking is the will to change. As long as the same horrific hermeneutic are cherished and claims of inerrancy, absolutism and infallibility are taught in SBC seminaries and preached in Southern Baptist pulpits, people will continue to suffer. The SBC historically has been a white, heterosexual, male-dominated religion, and that is the way it seems it is destined to remain. There seems to be little, if any, desire to change even though every year, the SBC becomes more isolated and more irrelevant to those whom they are charged to interpret the Word of God. To be a 21st century biblical interpreter, to make the Bible relevant to our own context and our own people, is a wonderful assignment. We can only fail at this task if we insist that living people conform to a dead past. As long as literalism persists in the SBC God will be promoted as one whom favors heterosexuals over homosexuals, and men over women in terms of ministry and the home.

Looking to a future where the Church can become a place where all people are welcomed to experience God regardless of gender, sexual identity, or color of skin can be an achievable goal. It only becomes unattainable when we think it is impossible. Some denominations may be much closer to this goal than the SBC; and yet even within the SBC there are young men and women who are moving through the ranks of the SBC, and with them comes a hopeful voice of renewal and change.

References

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1999. Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture. Masschusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc.

Alliance of Baptists. _Statement on Racism and Repentance_. http://www.sitemason.com/

files/bWq6sw/statementracism1990.pdf (accessed March 7, 2014).

Ammerman, Nancy T. 1990. _Baptist Battles: Social Change and Religious Conflict in the Southern Baptist Convention._ North Carolina: Rutgers University Press.

Angelou, Maya. 1969. _I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings_. New York: Random House.

Archer, G. and G. C. Chirichigno. 2005. _Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey_. Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Asimov, Isaac. 1981. _In the Beginning: Science Faces God in The Book of Genesis._ New York: Crown Publishers.

Associated Press, _Atheists Smear Christians with Slavery Billboard,_ 2012. http://nation.foxnews.com/war-religion/2012/03/07/atheists-smear-christians- slavery-billboard (accessed March 7, 2014).

Bacote, Vincent, Miguélez Laura, and Dennis Okholm. 2004. Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics. Ilinois: IVP Academic.

Baker, Robert A. and John M. Landers. 1994. _A Summary of Christian History_. Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

———, Robert A. 2000. _A Baptist Source Book: With Particular reference to Southern Baptists._ Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Balus Joseph, ed. Baptist Biography. http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/ carroll.j.m.bio.html (accessed March 7, 2014).

Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry. _Report of the Presidential Theological Study Committee_. http://baptistcenter.com/presidentialcommittee.html

(accessed March 07, 2014).

Baptist Faith and Message. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

(accessed March 7, 2014).

Baptist History and Heritage. 2003. _Round Two, Volume One: The Broadman Commentary Controversy_ http://www.highbeam.com/ doc/

1G1-99430508.html (accessed April 1, 2014).

Baptist Press. _Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy_. http://www.bpnews.net/ bpnews.asp?id=24424 (accessed March 07, 2014).

Barboza, David. _First Female Astronaut From China Blasts Into Space_. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/science/space/china-sends-3-astronauts-including-a-woman-into-space.html?_r=1& (accessed March 7, 2014).

Barker, William S. 1990. _Theonomy: A Reformed Critique._ Michigan: Academy Books.

Barna Group. _New Marriage and Divorce Statistics Released_. http://www.barna.org/

barna-update/article/15-familykids/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics- released (accessed March 7, 2014).

Bellah, Robert N. 1975. _The Broken Covenant_. New York: Seabury Press.

Blaker, Kimberly. 2003. _The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America_. Michigan: New Boston Books.

Braid, Mary. _South Africa: Apartheid's Priests don Sackcloth and Seek Forgiveness Three Decks_. www.independent.co.uk/news/south-africa-apartheids-priests- don-sackcloth-and-seek-forgiveness-three-decks-1295093.html

(accessed March 9, 2014).

Brand, Chad _. Christ Centered Marriages: Husbands and Wives Complementing One Another_. http://www.sbclife.net/articles/1998/09/sla2.asp

(accessed March 7, 2014).

Brinsfield, John. 2005. _The Spirit Divided: Memoirs of Civil War Chaplains: the Confederacy._ Georgia: Mercer University Press.

Broadus, John A. 1893. _Memoir of James Petigru Boyce_ , New York: A. C.

Armstrong and Son.

Butt, Kyle. _The Bitter Fruit of Atheism_. http://apologeticspress.com/ APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2531&topic=94 (accessed March 7, 2014).

Calvin, John. 1967. _The Institutes of the Christian Religion._ Pennsylvania: Westminster Press.

———. 2007. _Calvin's Bible Commentaries: Jeremiah and Lamentations, Part IV_. South Carolina: Forgotten Books Publishing.

Caner, Emir. 2003. _The Sacred Trust: Sketches of the Southern Baptist Convention Presidents._ Tennessee: Broadman and Holman Publishing.

Carroll, J.M. .1849 _.The Trail of Blood or_ _Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries_ _From_ _The Days of Christ to the Present Time_. Kentucky: Ashland Ave Baptist Church Publishing.

Carter, Jimmy. _Losing My Religion_. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my- religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _The Words of God do not Justify Cruelty to Women_. www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/2009/jul/12/jimmy-carter-womens-rights-equality (accessed March 7, 2014).

Cathart, William. _The Baptist Encyclopedia._ https://archive.org/details/ baptistencyclope02cathuoft (accessed March 7, 2014).

Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics. _The Chicago Statement of Faith_. http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html (accessed March 7, 2014).

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. http://www.swbts.edu/about/ affirmed- statements (accessed March 7, 2014).

Cline, Austine. _Atheism & Divorce: Divorce Rates for Atheists are Among the Lowest in America:_ _Why Do Conservative Christian Defenders of Marriage Get Divorced More Often?_ http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/ AtheistsDivorce.htm (accessed March 7, 2014).

Copeland, Luther E. 2002. _The Southern Baptist Convention and the Judgment of History: The Taint of an Original Sin_. Maryland: University Press of America.

Coyne, Jerry A. 2009. _Why Evolution is True_. New York: Viking Press.

Creegan, Nicola, and Christiane D. Pohl. 2005. _Living on the Boundaries: Evangelical Women, Feminism and the Theological Academy_. Illinois: Intervarsity Press.

Criswell, W. A. _The Tragedy of Those Times_. _http://www.wacriswell.com/outlines/ 1960/the-tragedy-of-those-times/_ (accessed March 7, 2014).

——— _. The Destruction of the City Church_. www.wacriswell.com/sermons/ 1964/the-destruction-of-the-city-church (accessed march 7, 2014).

———. _Washing Feet._ http://www.wacriswell.com/transcript/

?thisid=6E3584F2-0C39-465B-91D70773CBEA3644 (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Lot: Living With Homosexuals_. www.wacriswell.com/sermons/1980/ lot- living- with-homosexuals/ (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Noah: Drugs, Drunkenness, and Nakedness_. www.wacriswell.com/ sermons/1980/ noah-drugs-drunkenness-and-nakedness (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Naaman: Wash and Be Clean_. http://www.wacriswell.com/sermons/ 1981/ naaman-wash-and-be-clean (accessed March 7, 2014)

———. _Why God Abhors Homosexuals_. www.wacriswell.com/sermons/ 1986/

why-god-abhors-homosexuals/ (accessed March 7, 2014).

Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. http://cbmw.org/ uncategorized/the-danvers-statement/ (accessed March 7, 2014).

Davis, David. 2006. _Inhuman Bondage: the Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World_. England: Oxford University Press.

Du Bois, W.E.B. 2005. _The Souls of Black Folk_. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Duke, Barry. _South African church lied about the Biblical justification for White supremacy_. http://freethinker.co.uk/2008/08/17/ (accessed March 7, 2014).

Dutch Reformed Church. _A Study in Prejudice and Discrimination_. http://request.org.uk/

issues/2013/08/10/case-study-apartheid (accessed March 9, 2014).

Ehrman, Bart. 2005. _Forged: Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are_. New York: Harper Collins.

———. 2005. _Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why._

New York: Harper Collins.

———. 2010. _Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible And Why We Don't Know About Them_. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

———. _Speech given at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club_. http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/video/bart-ehrman-32111 (accessed March 7, 2014).

Ellison, Ralph. 1952. _Invisible Man._ New York: Random House.

Finn, Nathan. 2008. _Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution_. Georgia: Mercer University Press.

Flynt, Wayne. _Alabama Baptists: Southern Baptists in the Heart of Dixie_. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

Founder Ministries. _A Biographical Sketch of Richard Fuller_. http://www.founders.org/

library/sermons/bio_fuller.html (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Richard Fuller_. http://www.founders.org/journal/fj07/article4.html

(accessed March 7, 2014).

Fuller, Richard and Francis Wayland. 1845. _Domestic Slavery considered as a Scriptural Institution: In a Correspondence Between The Rev, Richard Fuller of Beauport, S. C. And The Rev. Francis Wayland of Providence._ New York: Lewis Colbey Publisher.

Furman, Richard. _Exposition of The Views of the Baptists, Relative to the Coloured Population In the United States in a Communication to the Governor of South Carolina._ http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1035.htm (accessed March 7, 2014).

Gangel, Kenneth. 1984. _The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament_. Colorado: David C. Cook.

Garrett, Duane. 2001 _. The Undead Hypothesis: Why the Documentary Hypothesis is the Frankenstein of Biblical Studies_. http://www.sbts.edu/media/ publications/sbjt/sbjt_2001fall4.pdf (accessed March 1.2014).

Geisler, Norm. 1998. _Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics_. Michigan: Baker House.

Genovese, Eugene Dominick. 1974. _Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made_. New York: Vintage Books.

Gereformeerde Kerk. _We confess that great wrongs have been done_. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/south-africa-apartheids-priests-don-sackcloth-and-seek-forgiveness-three-decks-1295093.html

(accessed March 7, 2014).

Glancy, Jennifer. 2002. _Slavery in Early Christianity_. England: Oxford University Press.

———. 2011. _Slavery As Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today._ Minnesota: Fortress Press.

Hall of Church History. _Philadelphia Confession of Faith_. www.spurgeon.org/~phil/ creeds/phila.htm (accessed March 7, 2014).

Harris, Sam. 2005. _The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason_.

New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Haynes, Stephen. 2002. _Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery_. England: Oxford University Press.

Hedges, Chris. 2007. _American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America_. New York: Free Press.

Heyrman, Christine Leigh. 1998. _Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt_. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press.

Hitchens, Christopher. 2007. _God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything._ New York: Twelve Hatchet Publishing.

Humble, Bill. _Readings In The Restoration Movement_.

http://www.therestorationmovement.com/okelley,james.htm (accessed April 7,2014).

Inter Sex Society of North America. _How common is intersex?_ http://www.isna.org/ faq/frequency (assessed April 8, 2014).

Irons, Charles F. 2008. _The Origins of Proslavery Christianity: White and Black Evangelicals in Colonial and Antebellum Virginia_. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.

Jewish Encyclopedia. _Hapax Legomena_. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/

articles/7236-hapax-legomena (accessed March 7, 2014).

Jewish Virtual Library. _Martin Luther: The Jews and Their Lies_. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

(accessed March 7, 2014).

Johnson, William B. _Address on the Origin of the Southern Baptist Convention, Augusta Georgia, 1845_. http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/

johnsons-address.pdf (accessed March 7, 2014).

Jones, R.G. _The Septuagint in the New Testament_. http://mysite.verizon.net/ rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm (accessed March 7, 2014).

Kelley, Charles, Richard D. Land, and R. Albert Mohler. 2007. _The Baptist Faith & Message_. Tennessee: Life Way Press.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. _The Structure of Scientific Revolution_. 3rd ed. Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Lane, Hal. _What does the Bible Really say about Heterosexual Marriage and Homosexuality_. http://erlc.com/article/what-does-the-bible-say-about- heterosexual-marriage-and-homosexuality (accessed March 7, 2014).

Lincoln, Abraham. _Lincoln's Fourth Debate with Douglas at Charleston, Illinois_

_September 18, 1858_. http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/

emancipation/docs/fourthdebate.html (accessed March 7, 2014).

Litwack, Leon F. 1979. _Been in the Storm so Long: The Aftermath of Slavery._

New York: Vintage Books

———. 1998. _Trouble in Mind: Black Southerners in the Age of Jim Crow._

New York: Vintage Books.

Long, Charles. 1963. _Alpha: The Myths of Creation._ New York: Oxford University Press.

Manifesto for the Christian Church. www.americanfundamentalists.com/ cast/manifesto.pdf (accessed March 7, 2014).

Marsden, George M. 1991. _Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism_. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls. www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/

biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/the-masoretic-text-and-the- dead- sea-scrolls (accessed march 7, 2014).

McCoy, Katie. _Anchored against the Tide: Female Pastors in the SBC and Contemporary Drifts toward Compromise_. http://www.baptisttheology.org/ baptisttheology/assets/File/Anchored%20against%20the%20Tide.pdf

(accessed March 7, 2014).

McKinion, Steven A. 2001. _Life and Practice in the Early Church: A Documentary Reader_. New York: New York University Press.

Michael, Robert. 2005. _A Concise History Of American Anti-Semitism_ , Maryland: Roman and Littlefield Publishers.

Nettles, Tom. _Interview with Tom Nettles on his Biography of James Boyce_. http://jimhamilton.info/2010/05/25/interview-with-tom-nettles-on-his-

biography-of-james-p-boyce/ (accessed March 7, 2014).

Newman, Mark. 2001. _Getting Right With God: Southern Baptists and Desegregation. 1945-1995._ Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.

New World Encyclopedia. _Michael Sevetus Imprisonment and Execution_. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Michael_Servetus#Imprisonment_

and_execution (accessed March 7, 2014).

New York Times Archive. _W. A. Criswell, a Baptist Leader, Dies at 92_. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/12/us/w-a-criswell-a-baptist-leader-dies-at- 92.html (accessed March 7, 2014).

Niebuhr, H. Richard. 1956. _Christ and Culture._ New York: Harper and Row.

Orwell, George. 1945. _Animal Farm: A Fairy Story._ New York: Harcourt Brace

Publishing.

Pearlman, Meyer. 1941. _The Minister's Service Book_. Missouri: Gospel Publishing House.

Pew Research. _Nones on the Rise_. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/

nones-on-the-rise/ (accessed March 11, 2014).

Philadelphia Declaration of Faith 1742. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/ phila.htm#3 (accessed April 7, 2014).

Porter, Stanley and Jason Robinson. 2011. _Hermeneutics: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory,_ Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing.

Raboteau, Albert. 1978. _Slave Religion: The "Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum South_. New York: Oxford University Press.

Raphall, M. J. _The Bible View of Slavery_. http://www.jewish-history.com/civalwar/  
raphall.html (accessed March 7, 2014).

Reformed Reader: _Baptist Cameos_ _: Richard Furman_. http://www.reformedreader.org/

furman.htm (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Presidential Theological Committee_. www.reformedreader.org/ccc/

1994report.htm (accessed March 7, 2014).

Rice, John. 1941. _Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers_. Illinois: Sword of the Lord Publishers.

Rogers, Adrian. _Why I Reject Evolution._ www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/why-i- reject- evolution-adrian-rogers-sermon-on-creation-155206.asp?Page=1 (accessed March 7, 2014).

Roman, Robert. 2005. _A Concise History of American Anti Semitism._ Maryland: Littlefield Publishing.

Ruether, Rosemary _._ 2012. _Women and Redemption: A Theological History_. Minnesota: Fortress Press.

Sagan, Carl. _Charlie Rose Interviews Carl Sagan_. http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=U8HEwO-2L4w (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence_.

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/10538.Carl_Sagan

(accessed March 7, 2014).

Save OBU. _SBC Uses "Journalism" as Propaganda_. http://saveobu.blogspot.com/2012/01/sbc-uses-journalism-as-propaganda.html (accessed April 7,2014).

SBC Life. _Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Perspective_. http://www.sbclife.net/Articles/

2010/10/sla13.asp (accessed March 7, 2014).

Schaap, Jack. It'll be a cold day in hell before I get my theology from a woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSk7qYjrNA (accessed March 7, 2014).

Schneir, Miriam. 1972. _Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings_. New York: Vintage Books.

Segal, Ronald. 1995. _The Black Diaspora: Five Centuries of the Black Experience Outside Africa_. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Shurden, Walter, and Lori Varnadoe. _The Origins of the Southern Baptist Convention: a Historiographical Study_. http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-94160891/the-origins-of-the-southern-baptist-convention-a (accessed March 7, 2014).

Smith, James. _Mosaic Authorship of Pentateuch Should be Reasserted_. http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=3098 (accessed March 7, 2014).

Smith, Shelton H. 1972. _In His Image, But...Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910._ North Carolina: Duke University Press.

Southern Baptist Convention. www.sbc.net (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Constitution and Charter_. www.sbc.net/PDF/SBCharterConstitutionByLaws.pdf

(accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Glorietta Statement_. http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=65 (accessed March 11,2014).

———. _Historical Library_ : _Isaac Taylor Tichenor_. www.sbhla.org/ bio_ittichenor.htm

(accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Mission Statement_. www.sbc.net/aboutus/missionvision.asp

(accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Position Statements._ www.sbc.net/aboutus/positionstatements.asp (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Resolution on Bible Translation_. www.sbc.net/resolutions/284

(accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Resolution on Hate Crimes Legislation_. www.sbc.net/resolutions/1170

(accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Resolution on Homosexual Marriage_. www.sbc.net/resolutions/614 (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Resolution on Ordination and the Role of Women in Ministry_. www.sbc.net/resolutions/1088 (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Resolution on Secular Humanism._ www.sbc.net/resolutions/968

(accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Resolution on The Gender-Neutral New International Version of the Bible_. www.sbc.net/resolutions/1218 (accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Resolution on Today's New International Version_.www.sbc.net/resolutions/1118

(accessed March 7, 2014).

———. _Resolution on Women_. www.sbc.net/resolutions/1088 (accessed March 7, 2014).

Southern Baptist of Texas Convention. _Constitution and Bylaws_. http://sbtexas.com/ about-sbtc/constitution-bylaws (accessed March 7, 2014).

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. _SWBTS Adopts the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood_. http://www.swbts.edu/about/

affirmed-statements/the-danvers-statement (accessed March 7, 2014).

Spain, Rufus. 2003. _At Ease in Zion: Social History of Southern Baptists, 1865-1900._

Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. _Falsification_. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ pseudo-science/#KarPop (accessed March 7, 2014).

Stefanelli, Al. _God Said it, I believe it, That Settles it._ http://carapace.weblogs.us/ archives/14249 (accessed March 7, 2014).

Tertullian, Quintus. 2005. _Ante-Nicene Fathers_ _._ Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishing.

Thurman, Howard. 1996. _Jesus and The Disinherited_. Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Trull, Joe. "Women and the SBC: Carter vs. Land." http://www.christianethicstoday.com/ NonJournalArticles/Women%20and%20the%20SBC- %20Carter%20vs.%20Land.htm (accessed March 7, 2014).

Vedder, Henry C. 1969. _A Short History of the Baptists_. Pennsylvania: Judson Press.

Volf, Miroslav. 2011. Public Faith: How followers of Christ Should Serve the Common

Good. Michigan: Brazos Press.

Walker, Williston. 1959. _A History of the Christian Church_. New York: Scribner.

Washington, Booker T. 1967. _Up From Slavery._ New York: Airmont Books.

Wicker, Christine. 2008. _The_ _Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crises inside the Church._ New York: Harper One.

Wilson, Charles Reagan. 2009. _Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865- 1920._ Georgia: The University of Georgia.

Wright, N. T. 1997. _What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?_ Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman Publishing.

Wright, Bryant. _Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary Guest Speaker_.

http://www.ggbts.edu/chapel/Archive.aspx (accessed March 7, 2014).

