Necessary legal disclaimer: I’m a lawyer. I’m not your lawyer. I’m not the Southern Baptist Convention’s lawyer. This article isn’t legal advice or intended to create a lawyer-client relationship between the SBC or any other party and me.
Mike Law circulated a letter last year informing the Southern Baptist Convention that for the sake of clarity he intended to propose an amendment that churches were not in friendly cooperation when they employed a female pastor.
But the amendment that passed didn’t say that.
It said something else entirely and meant something else entirely.
This is not a theological analysis by a seminarian. I’m not talking about women pastors. I’m a lawyer — not the SBC’s lawyer, not even a lawyer that practices civil law — but reading the amendment, I cannot overlook what we are about to do.
Based on an analysis of words and what they mean, the scope of the amendment is much, much broader now. In the name of clarity, we are about to create chaos.
An amended amendment: What happened?
At the 2023 Southern Baptist Convention, a proposed amendment to the Constitution was amended and voted on in short order. Most people in the room knew what their opinion was about the proposed amendment. Another pastor came forward to rephrase Law’s circulated language. The amendment of the amendment was a positive spin that seemed to accomplish the same thing. But did the flipped words mean the same thing?
In 2024, the SBC will consider whether to pass this amendment on the second and final vote.
Leading up to June, we must pause to really consider the intended and unintended consequences of our actions. I’ve heard it said that consequences should not determine our actions — truth is truth. Eh, looking at the natural line of reactions before setting off a chain tells you if you are going to accomplish what you intend. Looking at the consequences here reveals that this overly broad amendment takes aim well beyond its intended scope.
The proposed amendment: What does it say?
The proposed language will read:
The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work (i.e., a “cooperating” church as that term is used in the Convention’s governing documents) which: … (6) affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture. (amendment underlined)
The original amendment would have read (6) does not affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind.
Other than the framing, what is the difference? Does it matter? The addition of one clause: qualified by scripture. And yes, it makes a huge difference.
What does it mean and why does it matter?
Even among parties who agree that only men qualified by scripture should serve as pastor and what those qualifications are, would all agree when assessing individual candidates whether or not those candidates are qualified? This determination has always been left to the churches. As demonstrated below, this approach works. If the Convention deems a church’s action incompatible with the Convention’s stated beliefs, the Convention will act accordingly.
Further, do we intend to task the Credentials Committee with determining if individuals meet those qualifications? Because that’s what this amendment does.
We are opening up Credentials Committee referrals well beyond whether or not a church has a female pastor.
We are asking them to determine if pastors are:
- the husband of one wife. Can a pastor be divorced? Do the grounds matter? Can a pastor marry a woman who has been divorced?
- greedy. Is his salary too high? Did he negotiate a higher salary than first offered?
- sober. Does he wholly abstain from drinking? Does he only drink occasionally? Has he ever drunk to excess?
- self-controlled. Does he ever lose his temper? Does he eat to excess? Does he exercise and take care of his physical body? Does he handle his own finances well?
- living peaceably. Does he handle conflict well? Does he seek out arguments in the community or on social media? Has he sued another Christian in violation of biblical commands?
If I sound a bit flippant, it is intended to force attention, not insult.
I ask these questions not to challenge those faithfully serving but because these evaluations belong in the hands of the local body where these pastors serve, not before the Credentials Committee.
These are also areas where the views of faithful churches may vary substantially. For example, many churches would have never called Dr. Charles Stanley after his divorce, but he served decades after his divorce in 2000 and was lauded by many when he passed last year.
The status quo
Is this amendment even needed?
It was put forward to speak with clarity, but the Convention has spoken clearly without it. More than 90 percent of those present last year voted to find Saddleback and Fern Creek no longer in friendly cooperation. That means more than 90 percent of those present didn’t need this amendment to determine the question before them.
Do we really want to expand the role of the Credentials Committee exponentially?
This amendment doesn’t bring clarity. It brings chaos.
EDITOR’S NOTE — This story was written by Dani Bryson and originally published by Baptist and Reflector.
