EDITOR'S NOTE: This article includes two pastors' opinions--one for and one against the proposed amendment to be voted on at this June's SBC annual meeting. To read more on the amendment itself and Mike Law’s explanations, click here.

Why I Support the Law Amendment

written by Blake White, senior minister, South Side Baptist Church, Abilene, TX

I love the Southern Baptist Convention because it tethers missional passion to confessional fidelity. Confessional fidelity is why I am in favor of the Law Amendment. Cultural pressures to compromise God’s Word have always been with us. The issue today is female pastors, but there will be some new issue in the next decade. God’s charge to His church remains the same: don’t be blown about by every wind of doctrine but stand firm on the solid rock. We need a strong, conviction-led convention that will remain solid for the long haul.

In our day, confusion about gender and gender roles is at an all-time high. Feminism is now the air we breathe and has crept into too many of our churches. We have a unique and timely opportunity as a convention to speak a clear and needed word to a confused world. We have a unique and timely opportunity to prevent future theological drift.

Many Christians are confused about gender, and a lack of clarity on this issue as a convention will only make matters worse. The Law Amendment brings needed clarity in a new cultural context, as we have done with racism and sexual abuse. Twenty-four years ago, female pastors were not an issue. It is today.

I support ratification of the Law Amendment for four main reasons:

1. Scripture is clear.

There has been virtually no discussion of female pastors in the history of the church until the onset of the feminist movement. In the New Testament, and now in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, the titles pastor/overseer/elder are interchangeable (see Titus 1:5–7, Acts 20:17, 20:28, 1 Pet 5:1–2). Biblically, and now confessionally, there is no pastor who is not an overseer who is not an elder. This is how it should be.

The argument that a female pastor can legitimately serve under male elders misses the mark biblically and only produces confusion. The amendment brings helpful clarity. A church is in friendly cooperation when it “affirms, appoints or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” God’s clear will for His church is to be led by a plurality of spiritually-qualified male elders/pastors/overseers.

First Timothy 2:11–12 says, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” In so many ways, this is the key passage. As you know, virtually every word is debated. Southern Baptist theologians Thomas Schreiner and Andreas Köstenberger have served us well in Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016) by showing that new feminist revisionist readings fall short exegetically.

The context of 1 Timothy 2 is clearly local church structure generally (1 Tim 3:15) and the office of overseer specifically (3:1). However, it is important to note that Paul does not forbid office here but function. Will the Law/Sanchez take care of functional practices that violate 1 Timothy 2? No, but this is not an issue since the BFM2000 does not address function but office. Clarifying the office will take care of and prevent the majority of problems. Words matter, especially in confessions.

Then we have 1 Corinthians 14. Debate abounds here as well, but these verses are in the Bible. Verses 33–35 say, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” Studying these verses is beyond the scope of this article, but I simply reference them because they must mean something, and it is quite a stretch to move from this text to having females lead and teach men in the local church.

In God’s church, women are not to exercise authority over or teach men. Also, an overseer is to be a husband of one wife (1 Tim 3:2). We value the absolutely vital ways that women serve the Kingdom of Christ. They can and do serve in a host of essential ways. Pastoral ministry is not one of them.

2. The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 is clear.

Article 6 states, “Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” A church that has a female pastor or elder or overseer is operating outside the bounds of the confession. We need to cooperate within doctrinal unity, which will produce missional faithfulness and fruitfulness.

There is certainly a category for evangelical egalitarians. Those debates have now been happening for decades and can continue, but not in this convention. If someone is not convinced that our confession is exegetically grounded on this issue, they ought to take the high road and find a network or convention that fits rather than excludes their theology. There are many. The Kingdom is larger than the SBC (praise God)!

3. Baptist history is clear.

We have always upheld the Word of God by insisting on male-only pastors. This amendment simply clarifies the way Baptists have operated historically. The reason the issue of female pastors is pressing now is not due to new Biblical revelation or insight but churches caving to feminist cultural pressures. Beyond Baptist history, for 1,960 years, this has been a settled issue with rare exception.

4. I am concerned about the next generation.

We should think about those not yet in the room. What will our great grandchildren’s SBC look like if we compromise now? We stand at a crucial moment. The slope is slippery. Confirming evidence increases every year. The mound at the bottom of the slope is growing into a mountain with increasing speed. When we can make the Bible say the exact opposite of its plain reading, we can make it say anything. The convention spoke clearly against Saddleback and clearly for this amendment last year. I hope we will get it right again in Indianapolis. Failing to settle this issue now will erode unity, demonstrate drift and convey compromise.

God loves to bless obedience and to honor his Word. Let’s seek His favor together.

EDITORS' NOTES — This story appeared in The Baptist Paper. It was written by Blake White and originally published by the Baptist Review. Used with permission.

‍

Why I'm Against the Law Amendment

written by Steve Bezner, senior pastor, Houston Northwest Church, Houston, TX

This summer, messengers from the Southern Baptist Convention will gather in Indianapolis to vote on an amendment to the Convention’s constitution which aims to more closely define the role of pastor within cooperating churches, commonly known as the Law Amendment.

The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states that the role of pastor/elder/overseer is reserved for men, but until fairly recently, many churches in the SBC had operated under the assumption that women could hold church staff positions with the word “pastor” or “minister” in the title or fulfill ministerial functions in the church provided they were not serving as an elder or what many churches refer to as “Senior Pastor” or “Lead Pastor.” This assumption stems in large part from statements to that effect made by the committee itself in 2000 when the revised confession was proposed and adopted.

The Law Amendment seeks to clarify the extent of complementarian commitments within the SBC, answering this question: Can a church remain in good standing with the SBC if they have women staff members holding the title of pastor?

If the question stopped there, the conversation around the Law Amendment would be quite different. However, proponents of the Law Amendment have repeatedly claimed this also includes fulfilling ministerial functions of a pastor (with special emphasis given to women preaching to a mixed congregation) and is also extended to other titles they affiliate with “pastor,” such as ministers or directors.

This vote is important to me and my church for a simple reason: we have several females on our church staff who carry out ministerial functions. Up until recently, however, we have believed ourselves to be in good standing with the Southern Baptist Convention because we only have men serving as elders, and the only people on our staff with the word “pastor” in their job titles are those who also serve as elders. To use somewhat outdated and tired language, we have assumed that we are in friendly cooperation because the women on our staff are not pastors but are operating under the direction and authority of our pastors/elders.

It seems as though some of the amendment’s supporters are arguing that such women are pushing beyond the acceptable bounds of the BFM and, by extension, undercutting the Scriptures due to the function of their position, regardless of their title. They detail this on their website, sbcamendment.org. In the FAQ section, they explain their opinions in great detail, and they argue for a much more restrictive position than many churches in the SBC currently hold. For example:

• In Question 9 of the FAQ, they argue that the BFM conversation surrounding female pastors is about any woman serving in any pastoral role, not simply Senior or Lead Pastor.
• In Question 15 of the FAQ, they argue that women are clearly forbidden from teaching men based on 1 Timothy 2:12.
• In Question 22 of the FAQ, they argue that women are forbidden to preach to men, even if done in a context with all-male elders.
• In Question 23 of the FAQ, they come just short of saying that women cannot serve on staff with the title of “minister” if their job functions include any of those which they might deem pastoral.
• In Question 27 of the FAQ, they state that a woman serving as a Women’s Pastor or Children’s Pastor is “to subvert the clear teaching of Scripture and to disregard the plain teaching of the Baptist Faith and Message”.

In the 48 years I’ve been part of SBC churches, the vast majority were in churches that have allowed women to serve in a ministerial capacity. Each of them still have women serving on their staff. These churches don’t believe themselves to be out of step with the BFM or the Bible. I know we certainly don’t in my church.

To the contrary, we have thought in great detail about this topic, and we have reached vastly different conclusions from those who drafted the FAQ on the SBC Amendment website. We have male elders and pastors, but women as ministers. We believe women can teach men, but women do not serve as elders. This is precisely what the Baptist Faith and Message states on its face: it speaks to title and office, and it is silent on function.

My point is a simple one: we have a reasoned position, and we believe that position is grounded in the Scriptures and is in line with the BFM, as we only have male pastors/elders.

As a lifelong Southern Baptist, I have long believed that we cooperate with churches who may have small differences of Scriptural interpretation in order to serve the larger goal of sharing the gospel of Jesus together (hence the name of the Cooperative Program). We cooperate across our differences to do something together that we could not accomplish alone.

While I personally disagree with the interpretation of those offering the Law Amendment, I am willing to cooperate with pastors and churches who hold to such an interpretation because I believe the mission to be of ultimate importance. In short, although I am willing to cooperate with them, it appears that supporters of the Law Amendment are not willing to cooperate with me or, by extension, any individual or church with similar convictions.

Moment of decision

If the Law Amendment passes and if it is applied in the way that its supporters desire, then the convention will reach a moment of decision: how will it handle churches like mine? How will it handle other churches who have, for example, a female women’s pastor or children’s pastor?

This is why it is not only the passage of the Law Amendment that matters but its application as well. Some might argue that as long as women do not have the word “pastor” in their job title that they will be allowed to continue in good standing with the SBC. But I wonder if this is true. Women in our congregation regularly teach men the Bible to great effectiveness in various contexts. Our family minister leads many male volunteers, meaning she has “authority” over them. Will those who seek to codify the Law Amendment seek to push us out? Whose job will it be to decide if this ‘authority’ is the unbiblical authority, or if it’s acceptable as long as her title isn’t pastor?

To be clear: our church is not looking to cause division within the SBC. We have been cooperating for some time, and hope to do so long into the future. I do think, however, that we need to be clear regarding what, precisely, we are asking the messengers to approve. Is this simply an amendment about job titles? Or is this something far larger, seeking to create a universal approach to women in churches affiliated with the SBC? Will churches who do not view the office of elder the same as a children’s pastor now be out of friendly cooperation?

Cooperate or cannibalize?

Baptists don’t usually take kindly to hair-splitting bureaucratic directives, and if that is the way the amendment will be interpreted and enforced, I imagine many churches will cease cooperation with the SBC.

I recently asked a friend who is in leadership of a Baptist organization why it is that supporters of the Law Amendment want to push out churches with differing views on this topic. His answer surprised me: “They believe you might vote to change the Baptist Faith and Message to allow women pastors.” I suppose I am naive because I had never considered such an outcome. I simply believed that my particular interpretive stance was in the minority. I never perceived myself to be a threat. But if other churches are seen as threats, then I imagine the Law Amendment will pass, and it will be applied in the strictest of ways.

I don’t see such an approach helping the SBC in the long run. Instead, I think such an approach will lead to continuing decline and eventual theological cannibalization.

Perhaps it is not too late. I, for one, hope we will choose once again to cooperate instead of cannibalize.

‍EDITORS' NOTES — This story appeared in The Baptist Paper. It was written by Steve Bezner and originally published by the Baptist Review. Used with permission.