This is an article I’m going to do in two parts. I have some thoughts I’m going to publish at the start of the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, and then once we know the outcome of the convention and the hot-button issues, I’ll make some post-convention remarks.
I am not at the annual meeting this time around. I tend to go every other year, and this is my off year. It would not have been practical for my wife and I to go this year anyway. We just moved to Arizona at the end of 23, and we still have a house in TX that hasn’t sold. Given our financial situation, I’d rather take the money it would cost to go to the annual meeting and put it toward our bills. But just because I can’t be there doesn’t mean I don’t care about what’s going on.
All eyes are on Indianapolis today and tomorrow, June 11 and 12, as over 10,000 Southern Baptists from across America and indeed from around the world gather at the Indiana Convention Center to do the business of America’s largest Protestant fellowship.
The slate is crowded with hot topics: including the ongoing discussion about abuse reform and the lack of financial transparency among some Southern Baptist entities, on top of the usual resolutions and elections. But the biggest issue facing Southern Baptists this year has got to be the subject of women pastors and the passage of the Law Amendment to the SBC constitution.
As I have shared on my podcast since New Orleans last year, I don’t believe the Law Amendment is going to pass. But I really hope I’m wrong. I was there when the Law Amendment passed round one. I don’t think it’s going to get through round 2. The Amendment needs the approval of 2/3 of the messengers a second time in order to pass, and I just don’t think it has it.
What is the Law Amendment?
The mainstream headlines going into this meeting have been saying that “Southern Baptists are Poised to Ban Churches With Women Pastors” (Associated Press headline, June 6, 2024). They’re referring to the Law Amendment. With a desire to be a biblically faithful convention, the amendment states that churches with women as pastors are not in friendly cooperation with the convention, and therefore cannot be part of the SBC.
Proposed by Mike Law, pastor of Arlington Baptist Church in Arlington, VA, the Law Amendment takes language from the Southern Baptist statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and inserts it into the convention’s constitution under Article III, Section 1, clarifying what it takes for a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention.
To be part of the SBC, a church must meet these five qualifications: a church has to be baptist with a statement of faith that is at least consistent with the BFM 2000; they have formally approved cooperation with the SBC; they have made financial contributions through the Cooperative Program or to another Southern Baptist entity; they don’t discriminate on the basis of ethnicity; and they have biblical sexual ethics.
A sixth requirement is being proposed, and that is this: a church “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”
The amendment has strong support from the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Albert Mohler, who, other than Mike Law, has played the most significant role in putting this amendment forward. But another seminary president, Jeff Iorg, made a strong appeal to the messengers to oppose the passage of the Law Amendment.
There are six candidates running for president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and they’re split in half on the Law Amendment. Jared Moore, David Allen, and Clint Pressley have expressed their support for the amendment (if I was attending the annual meeting, I’d vote for Jared Moore). But Dan Spencer thinks the amendment is unnecessary, and Mike Keahbone and Bruce Frank strongly oppose it.
Frank has made the comment that the Law Amendment is actually a “downgrade” from the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Nonsense. It uses the wording of the BFM 2000 and puts it in the constitution.
Frank also said that in 100 years doctrinal precision will not matter but only how many people were led to Christ through the SBC. What? It is hard to imagine how Frank is qualified to pastor a church, let alone be president of the SBC, making statements so foolish. Throw out “doctrinal precision,” and no one gets saved.
At the start of 1 Timothy, the very first instruction Paul gave was, “Don’t let anyone teach any different doctrine.” At the end of the letter, he said, “If anyone teaches any different doctrine, and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and quarrels about words, which produce… constant friction” (1 Tim. 6:3-5).
And by the way, in case I need to point this out, this is from the same letter where Paul said women cannot be pastors: “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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Tim. 2:11-14).
Sounds to me like doctrinal precision is pretty important. This goes back to the very start of the Bible. And just like the serpent deceived Eve by saying, “Did God really say…?” that snake is trying to get Southern Baptists to question whether or not this is any big deal. Doctrinal precision is what will save and sustain the Southern Baptist Convention.
I’ve heard it said many times that a church does not need to agree with every word of the BFM 2000 in order to be a cooperating church with the SBC. That is exactly why it’s so important for Southern Baptists to be precise, and state in the constitution that churches with women pastors cannot be part of the fellowship.
To be part of the fellowship gives those churches the power to influence seminaries, committees, and other SBC entities. Go join the American Baptists if you want to be a baptist church with women pastors. The Bible says only qualified men can be pastors (1 Timothy 2:11-3:7, Titus 1:5-9).
Unfortunately, a lot of influential names oppose this amendment, including former SBC presidents J.D. Greear and Ed Litton (of course Litton opposes it because he has to copy whatever Greear does). Perhaps the primary reason they’d say they oppose is because they believe it means a lot of predominantly black churches will end up leaving the SBC fellowship, since many black churches ordain women as pastors.
Good doctrine doesn’t discriminate, but you know what? Neither does bad doctrine. Satan doesn’t care if your church is primarily red, yellow, black, white, or plaid (that one’s for our Scottish brethren)—whatever way he can get you to disobey God’s word, he’ll do it. He’s been doing it since the Garden of Eden. This has nothing to do with anyone’s ethnicity and everything to do with biblical fidelity.
Why Do I Think the Amendment Won’t Pass?
But the recent outspoken opposition to the Law Amendment is not the reason I believe it’s not going to pass. The reason I believe it won’t pass is because I was in the back of the room of the convention hall last year when the Law Amendment passed the first time in New Orleans.
As I said at the start, for the amendment to officially be added to the constitution, it needs the approval of 2/3 of the messengers at two consecutive annual meetings. This meeting in Indy is the second go. It passed last year in New Orleans—barely. In fact, I’m not convinced that it did have 2/3 of the messengers in New Orleans.
The Law Amendment went to a vote on day 2 of the convention right before lunch. Everyone voted by holding up their ballots: “All in favor, hold up your ballots—now all opposed, hold up your ballots.” And as I’ve shared before, sitting in the back of the room, able to survey all the ballots that went up in the air, I was not convinced that the affirmative was 2/3 of the vote. It looked more like 55 percent to 45 percent; or if I were to be really generous, 60/40. But it looked way to close to be 67 to 33.
By way of eye service, president Bart Barber said that the affirmative had it, and then he dismissed the convention to lunch. Hundreds of people were exiting the convention hall when someone opposed to the passage of the amendment came to a microphone and requested a written ballot. But his request for a written ballot was denied as the session had ended, people were exiting, and we went to lunch.
Frankly, I was surprised myself that the vote didn’t go to a written ballot. This was way too important a matter to let a close vote like that go without an accurate count. But here’s what I think was going on. I think that if the vote was mildly close, the entities that controlled the platform were willing to give it to the most conservative voices in New Orleans. It has to pass twice, so let it pass once if it’s that close, maybe to keep the peace, and then we’ll really decide the merits of it in Indianapolis.
Indy is not as conservative a ground as Nawlins. I think the vote this year will be much further from 2/3 than it was last year. It’s true that Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, which has husband and wife lead pastors, were removed in New Orleans by margin of 88 percent to 12. But for whatever reason, that same percentage did not translate to voting on the Law Amendment.
If it doesn’t pass, this is going to be a big mess. But I will wait until part 2 of this article to consider the future problems. Let’s wait and see how the vote will come out. The Law Amendment should be voted on this Wednesday morning at 10:00 Eastern Time.
And like I said, I hope I’m wrong. Praying for you, Southern Baptists.
Leave a Reply