The SBC and Women Pastors

Hey friends!

I’ve decided to wade into the arena of public discourse (Lord, help me!) to speak to my small corner of the world on a topic of which I’ve seen much misinformation and misunderstanding. That topic is the question of the SBC’s recent vote to amend its constitution specifying that a cooperating church is one that “Does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, specifically preaching to the assembled congregation.” If you don’t know how the SBC functions, that might not make a lot of sense. I will try to explain and make my arguments as clear yet concise as possible. Nevertheless, I can already feel in my heart this is going to be painfully long, so God have mercy and godspeed! May He grant you grace to read these words as charitably as possible!

DID THE SBC DO SOMETHING NEW? SOME CONTEXT

I’ve seen several posts by both individuals and media outlets that make it sound like Southern Baptists (SBs) have suddenly excluded women from ministry. This is an unfortunate and (perhaps in some cases) intentionally negative narrative framing which misconstrues the issue and in some cases is borderline slander. What has happened? Well, SBs have always held that the office of elder/pastor/overseer (hereafter EPO) was limited to biblically qualified men only. This has always been the case in our denomination. [Note, it has ALSO been the universal position of the church for about 2000 years. Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have a male-only priesthood.] Nothing has changed. However, as time and culture changes, things that were once understood and assumed become challenged and questioned. Which means that, over time, positions have to be more clearly defined in response to the challenges made against them. Which is why, in 2000, we made a revision to our statement of faith—the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BF&M)—more clearly delineating what we’ve always believed. Thus, the BF&M states “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” This has been in our statement of faith for 26 years, and reflects what SBs have always believed. So, this amendment is not really doing anything new at all. But if our statement of faith says that, why do we need this amendment at all?

WHY THE AMENDMENT? UNDERSTANDING THE SBC

Many fail to grasp that the SBC is pretty much unique in its institutional structure. We are a BOTTOM UP organization, not a TOP DOWN one. We govern ourselves VERY DIFFERENTLY than say Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. The SBC is comprised of voluntarily cooperating, independent churches who freely choose to partner together for the sake of missions. Each church is independent, and the SBC and its officers have no authority whatsoever to tell any SB church how it must function. Each church is totally independent in how it functions, who it hires for leadership, etc. All the SBC can do is define who qualifies as a “cooperating” church. Thus, the worst the SBC can do to a church violating our governing documents is say, “We no longer consider you a cooperating church”—which means that church can no longer send messengers (voting delegates) to our Annual Meeting. That’s it. Even if a church is removed from the SBC roll, it still continues to function wholly independently as a non-SBC church. Church autonomy is big in SB life.

What does this have to do with the amendment? Well, because we believe strongly in church freedom, we have defined what constitutes a “cooperating church” rather loosely. A church must have “a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith.” Do you see the problem? The problem is, what does “closely identify” mean? It’s a rather ambiguous phrase. The fact is, there have been churches who—for some reason—want to maintain a SB identity while disagreeing with fundamental positions in the BF&M. And the ambiguity of “closely identify” has sometimes been abused as a loophole to violate either the spirit or letter of the BF&M and yet remain SB.

Because of this, the SBC has had to add more specific language defining what actually constitutes a cooperating church. We’ve added specifically, for example, that “churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior would be deemed not to be in cooperation with the Convention.” We further added that cooperating churches must “not act in a manner inconsistent with the Conventions belief’s regarding sexual abuse” as well as, “not act to affirm, approve, or endorse discriminatory behavior on the basis of ethnicity.”

In recent years, we’ve been faced with the challenge of churches who violate—either in spirit or letter—our belief that the EPO office (both in name and function) is reserved for biblically qualified men only.  Thus, many—including me—believe the amendment is necessary to bring needed clarity to what defines a cooperating church, and close the loophole on this doctrinal point (again, which we’ve always believed) created by the ambiguity of “closely identify”. If you’ve followed me thus far, congratulations, you’re a true hero!

IS THE SBC DIVIDED? A LOOK INSIDE

If you’re looking in to the SBC from the outside it can be easy to miss what’s actually going on. The SBC is not divided on this issue. Every time a vote has come up to remove a church from our roll because it has a female pastor, the vote overwhelmingly passes. You may disagree with that. You have that right! But SBs know what they believe Scripture teaches on this issue. This is the second time an amendment like this has been attempted to be passed. A constitutional amendment requires affirmative vote in 2 consecutive annual meetings. The first time this was tried, the amendment failed on the second vote.

Technically, this year we did not amend the constitution. It will have to be passed again by a super-majority at next year’s annual meeting. Did the people who voted the last attempt down disagree with the position of male only EPOs? NO. I don’t think so. I believe them when they say they share the conviction but just think that the extra clarity isn’t needed. I disagree on that point. But it should clear that SBs are not divided on the question itself. We affirm what we believe Scripture teaches on the issue and what we (and the historical church) have always affirmed.

WHY UNITY ON THIS QUESTION IS SO IMPORTANT

There are at least 2 reasons why this question must be dealt with. The first is (1) the authority of Scripture. I hope in another post to speak to this question, but many SBs (including me) see the egalitarian reading of Scripture as one that inevitably leads to the eroding of Scriptural authority in a denomination. History has played this out time and time again. There are glorious exceptions. You may disagree with me on this point. But that is the largest concern for most who support this amendment: Will we submit joyfully in faith to what God has spoken or will we interpret Scripture in such a way that gives us great opportunity to dismiss ideas we no longer like because it was only relevant for that time? I know there’s much more that needs to be said on that, but it will have to wait.

Secondly, this is important because (2) the SBC is a missions organization. The whole purpose of like-minded churches cooperating together is to get the gospel to the nations primarily through planting churches. BUT this begs the question, “What kind of churches will we plant?” The money given by widows, the dollars given by kids at VBS, the sweat and labor of thousands of everyday Baptists who give freely and generously to missions to plant churches—how will that money be stewarded? Will churches be planted that align with our beliefs or not? If not, why should I continue to give money to advance what we believe is unscriptural? This question cannot be avoided or the beautiful SBC experiment will crumble and fail. We must have unity on this issue.

A WORD FOR CHRISTIANS OUTSIDE THE SBC LOOKING IN

I’ve seen many outside (and inside, for that matter) the SBC post long posts in response to this issue—posts about all the women God used in important ways in Scripture, and all the honor Scripture affords women in God’s plans and purposes for the church. Sadly, these posts intentionally or unintentionally imply that SBs don’t believe these things and that SBs’ position on a male only EPO office demeans women. If you are a brother or sister in Christ, can I ask you to believe the best about us and not subtly slander your brothers and sisters in Christ with such implied meanings? SBs believe STRONGLY in the massive role women play in God’s plan and economy. Women have thrived in the SBC, making massive impacts for Christ through our cooperating structure. In fact, the two most famous SBs in the world are two women! Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon! Incredible women whom we honor every year for their breathtaking contributions to the kingdom. So, please, brothers and sisters, don’t slander us by implying SBs demean, belittle, or disenfranchise women just because we take Paul’s words at face value when he says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12). Please don’t jump on the cultural bandwagon. Please don’t unjustly impugn the character of and assign the worst possible motives to your brothers and sister in Christ because you disagree with us on this theological issue. Please treat us in this circumstance as you yourself would want to be treated. We are on the same team. We shall give account for every careless word we speak.

A WORD ON “TONE” AND PERCEPTION

I’ve seen others comment that they don’t like the SBC’s “tone”, that we make a mountain out of a molehill, and rather than focusing on the gospel we grandstand on no women pastors. Please hear me graciously here. Let me ask a question. Who is the one primarily setting the “tone” and perception of the SBC in the society today? Guess who it isn’t. The SBC. Read those last few sentences again. It’s obvious that many who comment on this issue comment primarily from headlines they’ve read from secular media, some—perhaps many—haven’t actually talked to any actual SBs on the issue. The “tone” that you hear isn’t ours! It’s the world that hates our stand on Scripture and wants to paint us in the worst possible light. SBs have never changed on this question and frankly want to be done with it so we can move on to what REALLY animates us! The gospel of Jesus Christ! The Glory of God to the ends of the earth! Last I heard, the SBC was the largest missionary sending organization in the world! That’s why we exist! If you go to an annual meeting, you will see that’s our heartbeat. Don’t take your sense of “tone” and perception from godless media. Neither assume our tone is negative just because you think we’re wrong (we've all done it!)! I hope you’ll believe me when I say, Southern Baptists love Jesus! We love you, too! If you disagree, please visit my church on Sunday and I’ll show you people transformed and transforming by the grace of God for the glory of Jesus. We’re not perfect, but we do love Christ!

A COMMENT ON THE MOST COMMON OBJECTION TO MALE ONLY EPOs

I believe I will make a separate post (Lord help me!) on how best to interpret what the Bible actually teaches on the question of male only EPOs. But here I just want to respond to the most common criticism—namely—“look at the women God used in Scripture! Look at Deborah, Mary, Phoebe, Junia, Priscilla. Woman prophesy! Women share the gospel! Women were the first witnesses to the resurrection!”

What do we say to that? We say, YES AND AMEN! GLORY TO GOD! PRAISE BE TO THE KING OF ALL KINGS WHO CALLED MANY WOMEN TO BREATHTAKING DISPLAYS OF FAITH, COURAGE, LOVE, OBEDIENCE, AND SERVICE! I don’t know a single SB who doesn’t acknowledge and sincerely appreciate the contribution women make to the kingdom! I sincerely mean that. The problem with these posts is that the implied argument is a non sequitur. That is, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. It doesn’t follow that since Scripture gives multitudes of examples of women being used in important ways that THEREFORE women can be pastors. Do you see? The premises don’t demand the conclusion. Evidence that shows God mightily uses women proves that God mightily uses women! Bless God for that! Every SB believes that! But it doesn’t prove women can be pastors. We must go to the texts that clearly speak to the EPO office for that. And when you go to those texts it’s quite clear (1 Tim 2:12). And frankly, its unfair to speak like SBs are demeaning women, unless you believe that the ONLY way women can honor God is as a pastor. If you don’t believe that, then how are SBs disempowering women by holding to the scriptural teaching of a single office being reserved for qualified men? Does a prohibition from one single office in which to serve God really limit the impact women make in Christ’s kingdom—especially if He’s the one who ordered it that way?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

WHEW! Thank you for hanging in there to the end! At some point, Lord willing, I’ll make a second post detailing WHY we interpret Scripture in this way. But let me close with this. Many disagree with SBs on this theological point. And I’m happy to allow you your contrary opinion. May we ask the same favor in return? There are many denominations that ordain women. No one has to be Southern Baptist. There are many brothers and sisters I know and love in different denominations who believe differently than I on some important issues. That doesn’t mean we can’t be friends or root for each other! I’m rooting for every Christ-centered, Bible-believing, gospel preaching church out there! I’m rooting for you! Hopefully, if you disagree with us, you can still root for us too!

I hope I’ve communicated my heart in love, charity, clarity, and grace. Thanks for giving me a hearing. To Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen! (Eph 3:21)

Your friend,

Chad Hendley