I Was Right About the Law Amendment, Though I Wish I Wasn’t

In Acts 20:28-31, the Apostle Paul said in his farewell address to the elders in Ephesus, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood. For I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore, be alert…”

By now you already know that the Law Amendment failed to get the super-majority it needed to amend the constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). To recap, the amendment would have required that in order to be part of the SBC, a church had to have men as pastors. Women could not be the senior pastor, nor be on their pastoral staff.

In my last article, I said I hoped that I was wrong about the Law Amendment. I did not think it had the votes. It needed the approval of 2/3 of the messengers in order for the constitution to be amended, and that vote needed to pass at two consecutive annual meetings. It barely passed last year in New Orleans. But it failed this year in Indianapolis by a margin of 61 to 39.

In this article, which is part 2, I want to reflect upon what this could mean for America’s largest protestant denomination; I’ll also respond to comments about the Nicene Creed that were made at the convention, which got the historic creed trending on social media; and I’ll review of the luncheon hosted by The Center for Baptist Leadership and Founders Ministry.

The Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) will get a shout-out, as their General Assembly also met this week in Richmond, VA at the same time the SBC was meeting in Indy. You may not be Baptist or Presbyterian, but matters this critical in Christian institutions this large do have an effect on Christians in America and even around the world.

Reflecting Upon the Law Amendment Fail

Though the Law Amendment didn’t pass and the ERLC was not defunded, the Southern Baptist Convention is still remarkably conservative (though not as complementarian as they come across, but that’s a discussion for another time). Regarding the last several annual meetings, I believe New Orleans and Indianapolis came out more conservative than Nashville and Anaheim.

But too many Southern Baptists love the system over sound doctrine. There are significant blind spots, holes in their theology, and weaknesses in their defenses that must be dealt with, or they will soon be exploited by a prowling enemy. The debate over who is qualified to be a pastor is no small thing, and dropping the Law Amendment was a huge miss that could have serious consequences.

In addition to the Law Amendment, the messengers also had to consider First Baptist Church of Alexandria, VA, which the Credentials Committee was putting forward for removal since they had women pastors on staff. The vote to remove FBC was 92% yes and 8% no.

Now that is awfully strange, isn’t it? How is it that 92 percent of the messengers agreed that FBC should be removed, but only 61 percent are in favor of a constitutional amendment that would automatically exclude any church with women pastors?

Well many people were convinced that the 92/8 margin proves that the system works fine the way it is, and there’s no reason to change the constitution. It’s already in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the SBC statement of faith, that pastors must be men. And on that basis alone, churches were removed from the fellowship last year and this year by the messengers. So a constitutional amendment is unneeded.

However, FBC of Alexandria, a historic Southern Baptist church, has been ordaining women as pastors since 1980. It has taken 44 years for that church to be brought up for removal. FBC was submitted to the Credentials Committee in 2022, so it has taken two years for the Committee to bring them to the convention to render a judgment. A constitutional amendment would have excluded them outright.

Not only that, but there are still 1800 Southern Baptist churches with women pastors. Will the messengers be voting on removing a couple of churches at every annual meeting? At the current rate of expulsion, they should all be removed from the convention by the year 2524.

Despite the incredible margin that resulted in removing FBC of Alexandria, the fact that the Law Amendment failed had the mainstream media and egalitarians cheering this as a win. Baptist Women in Ministry put out this statement: “Baptist Women in Ministry offers appreciation to all the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) who voted against the Law amendment because of their commitment to support and affirm women serving as pastors of all kinds in the SBC.”

While it is true that the BFM 2000 says that the office of pastor, elder, or overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture, the BFM 2000 is a non-binding faith statement, meaning that someone could simply disagree with the part that says pastors must be men and still join the fellowship with the SBC. Given how long it takes to remove a church with women pastors, egalitarians have the advantage here.

That 92 percent majority won’t last long unless the middle 31 percent—who voted out FBC of Alexandria but voted down the Law Amendment—become more resolute and realize the defenses needed to protect the convention. The fellowship can be quickly over-run with liberal churches rejecting the authority of God’s word by ordaining women pastors and later approving of all manner of perversions.

As I said in a past article and laid out the evidence, once a church or denomination begins to ordain women as pastors, it’s only a matter of time before they become tolerant of LGBTQ perversions, approving of them, and ordaining homosexual clergy—women pastors today, sodomite pastors tomorrow. Southern Baptists may scoff at the likelihood. But this has happened to the PCUSA, the ELCA, the Anglicans, the Methodists, and even among Southern Baptists.

The SBC’s flagship school, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, first began at First Baptist Church in Greenville, SC, before it moved to its current location in Louisville, KY. FBC of Greenville appointed their first women pastors in 1989, and eventually left the SBC in 1999. Then in 2014, they issued a statement allowing for the ordination of anyone identifying as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender). So in less than 25 years, a historic Southern Baptist Church went from ordaining women to ordaining sodomites.

The Law Amendment can be revived, but it would take two more consecutive annual meetings in order to pass it. That’s a long time for Southern Baptists to have let down their guard, and fierce wolves already among them are ready to take advantage. True, the “fierce wolves” are a minority. But it only takes a few wolves to devour a whole flock.

Responding to Comments About the Nicene Creed

I’m going to skip the backstory behind why the Nicene Creed even came up at this year’s annual meeting—the context isn’t important. But if you’re curious, you can read this article. As Mark DeVine puts it, the effort to get the Nicene Creed inserted into the BFM 2000 was “a solution in search of a problem.” Well, it seems to have found a problem.

On Tuesday morning, my phone, DM’s, and inboxes started blowing up with friends who were baffled by comments made about the Nicene Creed at the Southern Baptist Convention. The first one I got said, “What do Southern Baptists have against the Nicene Creed?” That was when I saw the statement about the creed made by David Allen, professor of practical theology and dean of the Adrian Rogers Center for Biblical Preaching at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis, TN (sorry, that was a mouthful).

His comment was from a Q&A panel featuring all six men nominated for president of the SBC. (This was the same panel in which Bruce Frank said that winning souls was more important than doctrinal precision.) Dr. Allen was asked what he thought about the convention amending the BFM 2000 to include the Nicene Creed—one of the most basic and universally accepted professions of the Christian faith.

Dr. Allen first responded by talking about how that process should work—you can agree or disagree with that. Then he said this about the creed itself:

I’m a Southern Baptist, but I’m not a big fan of ecumenism—you know, sort of like in the book the Porcine History of Philosophy and Theology. You’ve got all the little pigs demonstrating the various denominations and their views. And there’s a scene in that book where you have several pigs holding hands, and it’s the Lutheran pig and the Presbyterian pig and the Anglican pig and the Episcopalian pig, and they’re dancing around in a circle. And then there’s one pig with a frown on his face and his arms folded, and he’s lying over there under the tree, and of course the label there is he’s the Baptist pig. So he’s not very interested in ecumenical furor.

And I have to admit, I’m a bit like that pig. I’m a little careful, a little skittish, about too much ecumenism. And I think the Nicene Creed—while generally is a very good creed, and it’s certainly been accepted by many traditions—there are still a couple of issues of wording in that creed that could be interpreted to foment or to produce doctrines or concepts of doctrines that we as Baptists would reject. And so I would say let’s just take a little bit more time and look at this thing before we jump through that hoop this convention.

Now if the Southern Baptist Convention cannot be in agreement with the Nicene Creed, that’s a big problem. No one needs to be skittish about the Nicene Creed. As my friend Nate Pickowicz said, “The Nicene Creed is basic Christianity. You can believe more but you really can’t believe any less.”

At the same time, no one should assume that David Allen rejects that we worship one God, one Lord Jesus Christ who is also God, born of the Virgin Mary; He suffered and was buried and rose again, according to the Scriptures, and so on. Likely what Dr. Allen had in mind were the lines about believing in “one holy catholic and apostolic church,” and “we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”

The “catholic and apostolic church” does not mean Roman Catholic or an apostolic/charismatic church. Catholic means universal, referring to all who have placed faith in Jesus Christ for salvation; and apostolic means built on the teaching of the apostles which we have in the Bible. “One baptism for the remission of sins” does not mean water baptism forgives sins, but it is the one baptism ordained by Christ for those whose sins have been forgiven (see Acts 10:43-48, for example).

Josh Sommer, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Kansas City, said, “Upon a deeper reading of the literature surrounding Nicaea, ‘one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ could be (and has been ) affirmed by Baptists according to the authorial intent of the phrase. The assumption that Baptists have had to revise this statement is woefully dubious.”

Regardless of what Dr. Allen meant, the Nicene Creed chatter looked bad before the brethren in other denominations. Of little wonder why the Southern Baptist Convention can’t seem to be in agreement on who is qualified to be pastor if it has trouble agreeing with historic Christian statements summarizing basic biblical doctrines.

And speaking of bad optics, this next part is unlikely to score me any points, even in my own circles. I’m going to address it anyway, but do receive it in the spirit of a concerned pastor, not in the spirit of an angry keyboard clacker “spouting pseud-gospel insight from a coffee shop couch.” I don’t like coffee anyway (judge me as you may).

Reviewing the “SBC at a Crossroads” Luncheon

On Tuesday, the Center for Baptist Leadership in cooperation with Founders Ministry hosted a luncheon billed as “SBC at a Crossroads. Is the SBC for Sale? How Progressive Money and Influence is Subverting the SBC.”

While the ERLC was hosting a luncheon in which they interviewed former Vice President Mike Pence, CBL and Founders hosted their own luncheon in which their keynote speaker burned the ERLC as a left-wing, pro-Democrat political arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, and had the receipts to prove it. This keynote speaker was, ironically, a woman—Daily Wire reporter Megan Basham.

At the same convention where the messengers would soon be voting on an amendment that would limit the role of pastor to men as qualified by Scripture, the “SBC at a Crossroads” luncheon, strongly in favor of the Law Amendment, invited a woman to deliver their keynote address. She wasn’t just a guest presenter or was there to answer questions—she was the headline speaker of the luncheon.

I remember when the announcement about the luncheon came out, stirring up all this excitement over the woman who was going to deliver the keynote address. I just had to laugh. I texted the bulletin to a few friends and said, “What in the world are they thinking?”

Now I want to be clear: this is nothing against Megan, and I’m not even accusing anyone of doing anything sinful. It just didn’t look good. Many on social media, among believers and unbelievers, were baffled by the cognitive dissonance. Here were these two conservative ministries pushing the need for the Law Amendment, they featured a panel of men who expressed the need for men to step up and lead, and then those men sat down so their keynote address could be delivered by a woman.

Listen, I love Brian and Megan Basham. I’ve had them both on my podcast. They are a Christian power couple of ethical journalism. My family is subscribed to and watches World Watch News hosted by Brian, “The Big Bash” (I miss when they were daily 5 minute updates on YouTube, but you can still subscribe to them here). I’ve been reading Megan’s articles since she was reviewing movies. So I am in no way calling out Megan for doing anything wrong.

Megan is like a Deborah in American evangelicalism. As God raised up Deborah to prophesy over Israel and make fools of the men who would not fight, so God has been using Megan to expose the corrupt shepherds who are either leaving the sheep vulnerable or devouring them. Some of the men she’s called out for pushing a liberal political agenda have included Russell Moore, David French, Ed Stetzer, Rick Warren, Francis Collins, Tim Keller, and J.D. Greear.

But the job she’s doing is not just making fools of those cunning workmen, covert operatives, and closet liberals—it is also embarrassing conservatives. Was there really no biblically faithful and capable man “who had understanding of the times” (1 Chronicles 12:32), who could have done the work comparable to what Megan has done, and then delivered a message of similar caliber?

Both the Center for Baptist Leadership and Founders had Megan on their respective podcasts to talk about the corruption she’s unearthed, presented in her upcoming book, Shepherds for Sale. Could not a man of CBL or Founders’ choosing have said to Megan, “Walk me through what you have,” and put together a message combining his work with hers, still giving her credit for her labor, even giving a plug for her book, and he could have preached the message that made application: “Here’s what we as Christians need to do in light of this”?

Again, this is nothing against Megan. Her message was worthy of the standing ovation it received, and you can read it here. I intend to read her book once it comes out. But does her keynote platform not reveal a lack of strength even among conservative Baptist men? When the liberals took advantage of a crisis, they platformed Rachel Denhollander. And it’s as if the conservatives have responded, “We’ll see your Denhollander and raise you a Basham!”

The Southern Baptist Convention was not the only protestant gathering this week to do something like this. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) was also debating the roles of women, and a breakout group of theirs had Rosaria Butterfield to address a mixed room of more than 1,000 people. Like Megan, she called on her denomination to be biblically faithful stewards, specifically addressing men. She warned against the deceptions of big tent evangelism and Side B Christianity, and she called out Christianity Today as being a soft tool of Sodom.

To the PCA, I have to ask just as I would to Southern Baptists: was there seriously not a man among you who could have delivered just as strong a charge, exposing sin and corruption and calling on men to fight the good fight of the faith? (I’m not a Presbyterian, so maybe someone else with more clout in the PCA can speak to this.)

Respectfully, men, this isn’t a woman’s fight. It’s ours. How can you consistently say, “Only men can preach,” on the one hand, while ushering a woman up to the platform to preach for you with the other? Is Barak still too timid to go to battle unless Deborah is holding his hand?

Conclusion

Now the reaction here is not to tell women to sit down and be quiet. The response is for men to step up and lead—no matter your church or denomination. Would there be this confusion over the qualifications of a pastor, orthodox historic creeds, and who speaks in what context if the church is led by temperate, dignified, and sensible men sound in faith, love, and steadfastness (Titus 2:2)?

John Calvin said that a shepherd needs to have two voices: “One for gathering the sheep; and another, for warding off and driving away wolves and thieves. The Scripture supplies him with the means of doing both.” Are the shepherds paying careful attention to themselves and to all the flock?

God, grant your church resolute men who hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, giving instruction in sound doctrine, and rebuking those who contradict it (Titus 1:9).