This summer, messengers to the SBC annual meeting will vote on the ratification of an amendment to our constitution which would add a restriction regarding the type of church we consider to be in friendly cooperation. The proposed amendment reads: “Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” While I will be on my first sabbatical as a young pastor and won’t be in Indianapolis to vote, allow me to make a case for voting yes when this matter comes before the messengers in June.
While I support the Law Amendment, that support is not without concern as my social media feeds unsurprisingly fill up with opinions across the spectrum. What I hope to do is lay out why I think you should support this amendment while also voicing some concerns I’ve observed these last few months leading up to June.
Two Reasons to Support the Law Amendment
1. It brings clarity that we need in this cultural moment in America
It isn’t overly complicated for me: I think we need to be clear about what we believe in our current culture and context.
I’m not as concerned about precedent or potential consequences as I am about what is happening in our contextual and cultural moment as Southern Baptists living in 2024 in America. And in this moment, there is extreme pressure to depart from our statement of faith that states, “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.” As pressure mounts and other denominations embrace an egalitarian view of gender roles in the church, I think it is necessary to bring clarity to what we believe as a denomination.
Some have noted that we have done this with fairly egregious examples such as affirmation of homosexuality, racism, and abuse. And the concern is that this is something categorically different. With the issue of women serving as pastors, we would encourage proponents to simply join another congregation, while with the other egregious examples we would call them to repent. I would reframe the dissent though.
Imagine a convention where it was becoming more and more popular to believe and practice infant baptism. All of the sudden we find there are hundreds and maybe even thousands of SBC churches doing this along with our culture praising this trend as well. I can imagine in a scenario like that we would want to add some clarity to our constitution because churches were beginning to embrace something that we believe is antithetical to what we believe as Southern Baptists. I wouldn’t categorize that issue in the same ways I would racism or abuse but I would say, “If you’re going to believe infants should be baptized and not believers, you’re going to have to join a different denomination.” I see this issue of who can serve as a pastor in the same vein.
The amendment isn’t proposing a stricter belief, it is simply stating what is already present in The Baptist Faith and Message 2000. And with all that is happening around us, clarity is needed to state what it is we actually believe.
2. It brings clarity that we need in this contextual moment in the SBC
The pressure, however, isn’t just coming from outside of the convention, but inside as well. I have heard from others regarding the number of female pastors in the SBC. This has come from both Mike Law as he looked around his association, and from my own experience as a local church pastor in Florida. I don’t go out looking for these issues, but I remember not long after our church went through the NAMB assessment when a church here in Florida was planted through NAMB with a husband and wife as co-pastors. I haven’t heard of a lot of these stories, but nonetheless, this happened just three years ago.
Having clarity around whether or not women can be pastors only serves our denomination, since clearly the BF&M 2000 wasn’t enough to make sure we weren’t planting churches with co-pastors or having churches voluntarily join this denomination with women serving as pastors in their local churches.
It is at this point where I have heard concern that most of these situations involve churches that just may not have theological clarity around the title. Maybe it is just an atheological congregation that has a woman serving as the children’s pastor, and in that setting, pastor is simply a title and not a function. They may even be functionally complementarian but because they don’t have the right title, are we then going to disfellowship them?
While this is a legitimate concern and one I’ll touch on in a moment, I do wonder why there are so many situations where churches are espousing an egalitarian view of gender roles in the local church. I don’t know Kevin McClure or what makes for a skilled statistician, but his findings are more than concerning. I haven’t heard someone bring any research disproving his findings and showing that this isn’t really an issue in the SBC. And if even some of those findings are true, then we do have an issue with clarity in regard to this issue in our convention.
With both the external pressure to conform to a more modern view of gender roles and also the significant presence of female pastors in the convention, it is evident to me that we need the clarity this amendment brings.
While I clearly support the amendment, that does not mean I am without concerns.
Three Concerns Surrounding the Law Amendment
1. Supporters oversimplifying their argument
When I see major proponents and significant influences in the SBC say their support boils down to supporting the Law Amendment because “it affirms what the Bible affirms,” I get concerned about a rhetoric that now paints any detractors as people who don’t care as much about the Bible. In fact, I don’t even think people would carry that logic to its conclusion.
I would be curious if someone who agrees with this rationale and holds to an amillennial view of eschatology would vote to support an amendment adding that restriction to the constitution because they believe it is what the Bible teaches and you always vote for what the Bible teaches. I don’t think they would.
The question is not, “Is this Biblical?” The question is, “Should this be grounds for cooperation?” And there is more wisdom and nuance needed to answer that question.
2. Supporters oversimplifying their opponents
Another concern I’ve observed is at times lumping anyone who opposes the Law Amendment into the same category. Tribalism is rampant in our culture, and I am not always sure we are aware of its effects in our convention and in our churches.
Anyone who opposes this amendment clearly either overtly supports egalitarianism or is covertly trying to smuggle it in! We don’t have the wisdom to be able to engage with people differently. I disagree with the conclusions in a recent article written by Rob Colingsworth over what we should do about this amendment. But I believe we could serve alongside each happily in the same church and, I wouldn’t be surprised, even in church leadership together. He is not my enemy. In fact, quite the opposite, he is a dear brother whom I will spend eternity with.
On the whole, I have witnessed a diminishing ability to hear from someone disagreeing with you and welcoming the critique. Whether it’s tribalism, insecurity, or just being thin-skinned and unable to receive any kind of critique, we need to be sure we aren’t villainizing and lumping together all those who disagree with us as we fight for what we believe.
3. Supporters neglecting to see the legitimate concerns of what may transpire if the Law Amendment is passed
I have heard a number of people raise the concern over the church that isn’t egalitarian but simply has women listed as a “Children’s Pastor” or “Women’s Pastor” in title but not function. The concern is how the amendment would be applied. Will we disfellowship these churches over semantics and not theology or function?
This concern seems legitimate, as I would have no desire to disfellowship these churches. But I would hope that however this amendment would be applied to our convention, those people would be able to discern the difference between a church that has a woman as the teaching pastor or co-pastor and the church that has had a “Children’s Pastor” for decades and simply needs language that aligns with our beliefs and will help them in this current cultural moment. Perhaps I am naive, but I have the hope that whoever would be talking to these churches on behalf of the convention would be able to discern the difference between these two scenarios and could lead them through the process wisely and humbly.
If the amendment does pass, I would like to see further conversation about how to apply it well and graciously to the convention.
This is a larger conversation that I think we need to be talking about more. I am grateful to Trevin Wax for his description of a multi-directional leader, and I am as convinced as ever that describes the kinds of leaders we need for this next season of the convention. I share Trevin’s concern as he writes:
“My worry today is that evangelical leaders have sharpened their skills in fighting threats to the church that come from only one direction. What’s worse, many evangelicals seem to prefer leaders who will point out the dangers coming from only one direction while never offering a warning or uncovering the blind spots that may originate closer to home.”
There are more issues here than simply whether or not women can be pastors. The weaponization of this amendment, the application of the amendment, the move toward confessionalism, and the overall spirit of the debate are merely some of the concerns that accompany the issue this amendment addresses. And we need leaders that aren’t simply looking for threats in one direction, but that have their heads on a swivel as they lead in a multi-directional posture.
Editor's Note: As a part of its commitment to fostering conversation within the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist Review may publish editorials that espouse viewpoints that are not necessarily shared by the TBR team or other contributors. We welcome submissions for responses and rebuttals to any editorials as we seek to host meaningful conversations about the present and future of our convention.
Caleb Brasher
Caleb Brasher (M.Div. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) was born and raised in West Monroe, Louisiana and pastors The Grove Church in Clermont, Florida. He and his wife Lia have three kids, Millie, Jack, and Brooks. Caleb is a contributor at The Baptist Review, For the Church, and 9Marks. He loves Mississippi State, great movies, and anything excellent.