On SBC 26

Hope City Church,

I felt it would be helpful and right, with so much attention given to the issue, for me to personally address you all with some thoughts concerning the recent annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

First, some clarifications, as I know many of you may not have grown up familiar with the SBC or its various entities.

Let me summarize some general information regarding the SBC, admitting to you up front that I asked the internet to summarize this next bit of info for me and for you:

“The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is not a denomination in the sense of a top-down organization that owns churches or appoints pastors. It is a voluntary association of autonomous churches that cooperate together to accomplish ministry they could not easily do alone.
At its core, the SBC exists for three main reasons:
Missions – The SBC's primary purpose is to send and support missionaries through organizations like the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board. Churches pool resources through the Cooperative Program to fund thousands of missionaries and church planters.
Ministry Training and Education – The SBC cooperates to train pastors and ministry leaders through its seminaries, such as The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, among others.
Cooperation Around Shared Beliefs – Churches work together because they generally affirm a common statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message, while maintaining local church independence.

What the SBC Is
A convention (an annual gathering) of cooperating churches.
A network that funds missions, church planting, seminaries, disaster relief, and various ministries.
A fellowship of churches with broadly shared doctrinal convictions.
A voluntary partnership—churches choose whether to participate and can leave at any time.
What the SBC Is Not
It is not a hierarchy above the local church.
It does not own local church property.
It does not appoint pastors or elders.
It generally cannot tell a church how to conduct its ministry, except that it can determine whether a church is in friendly cooperation and therefore eligible to remain in the convention.”

The conversation swirling around the last few weeks has centered on a particular amendment to the SBC constitution, which was voted on at the annual meeting of the SBC, held in Orlando, FL.
The amendment that has generated the discussion is the "Truth and Unity Amendment" (previously called the Law Amendment in its earlier form).
It would add language to the SBC Constitution clarifying that a cooperating Southern Baptist church does not:
"affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of pastor/elder/overseer, specifically preaching to the assembled congregation."
If adopted, this language would place any church engaging in these practices regarding women in the office or function of pastor under review by the Credentials Committee, with final judgment resting in the hands of messengers at the SBC Annual Meeting.
If investigated and found guilty of violating the language of this amendment, and then voted on by the messengers as such, the church in violation would be removed from affiliation in the SBC.
In short, if you have a woman preach on Sundays, you will be removed from the SBC after a thorough process.
But before I go any further, let me start with some general thoughts on the annual convention, and we will work our way towards clarifying comments in regards to the controversy regarding the amendment.

General Reflections and Encouragements

Near the beginning of the annual meetings, we all (over ten thousand?) joined together for the IMB (International Mission Board) Commissioning.

During this portion of the meetings, we heard from 63 missionaries who are this year being sent to countries all over the world.

They each gave a brief backstory, talked about their destination and the gospel need, and shared prayer requests.

For many of them, their destinations are so dangerous/restrictive that their faces couldn’t be shown, and their voices were AI generated to protect their security.

It’s hard to express the emotion you feel as you sit and listen to this many people describe a calling to the mission field and a desire to reach the unreached with the gospel of Jesus.  

This is what it’s all about, quite literally, when it comes to the SBC.

We aren’t mainly gathering to argue about doctrine (although that is a necessary component of maintaining missional integrity), but to reach the lost with the gospel.

The annual meetings are quite a unique experience.  There are open mics, to which any qualified messenger in the room (of thousands) can freely approach the mic and voice affirmation or disagreement with a given motion or resolution.

Edits were proposed, differences of opinion were expressed, and the president, Clint Pressley, put on a clinic in how to handle disagreement with directness, humor, and charity.

I would note that, in the room, there was a warm spirit, even in disagreements.  The overall “vibe,” sorry I can’t think of a better word, was joyful excitement at what the Lord is doing in us and through us.

As a church planter, it moved me to see and hear from so many other men who have watched their small group of committed members stack chairs and take ‘em down, celebrated having a new family join their church, and preached in front of those good ole black backdrops that cover up ugly gym walls.

But, let’s get into the issue at hand.  The Truth and Unity Amendment.

The context and need for the amendment

First of all, let me say this:  Our shared statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, already clearly 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.”

One would hope this might settle the issue.  It hasn’t.  

You would be right to ask, if the statement of faith says it so clearly, why do we need to vote on an amendment to the constitution that just says the same thing as our doctrinal confession already says?
Again, thank you to the summarizing power of the internet:
“The answer is that a confession and a constitution serve different purposes.
The Baptist Faith and Message tells us what Southern Baptists believe. It is our doctrinal statement. The Constitution, however, helps define what it means for a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention.
In recent years, questions have arisen because some churches have affirmed women with pastoral titles or functions while still affirming the Baptist Faith and Message in principle. This has led to disagreements about how our confession should be applied and whether certain churches should remain in friendly cooperation with the SBC.”
Supporters of the amendment, among whom I happily count myself, believe that if our confession clearly reserves the pastoral office for qualified men, then our Constitution should also clearly articulate how that conviction affects our cooperation.
In other words, the amendment does not seek to create a new doctrine, but bring clarity to an ancient one for purposes of defining what it means for a church to be in friendly cooperation with the SBC.
Right now, a church can play word games with the Baptist Faith and Message, and have a woman preach on Sundays, but not call her a pastor.  
Or, a church can say that a woman performs the function of pastor but doesn’t hold the office.
This can protect you from a clear violation of the spirit of our doctrinal position.
This is why the clarity from the amendment is needed.
The amendment passed, basically 75 percent to 25 percent.  Whitney and I are humbled and grateful to say that we were a part of the 75 percent. Glory to God.

Peeling back the Onion
All of those procedural notes being laid out, I want to speak to you now about the broader picture, from a pastor’s perspective.

I have read many articles, tweets, and blogs this week angrily opposing what just happened in Orlando, as Southern Baptists overwhelmingly voted in support of the Truth and Unity Amendment.

I have read headlines and statements such as:

"SBC votes against women."
"SBC bans women from ministry."
"SBC silences women."
"The SBC thinks women are inferior."
"The SBC cares more about women pastors than abuse."

These types of reactions to decisions and beliefs we do not personally hold have unfortunately become the air we breathe in our online age.

I’m not an educated man.  But, if you will indulge me, I want to take a minute to regurgitate to you a few lessons in basic logical fallacies.

1. Straw Man
A straw man happens when you misrepresent someone else’s position in order to make it easier to attack.
For example, you might tweet out, in response to the vote: "SBC votes against women."
The problem here is, to point out one specific example, my wife voted right along with me, and was absolutely zealous to find a way to arrange childcare and find money in our budget so that we could be present for this vote.  
We simply were not voting for or against the worth and value of women.  
We were voting for or against the biblical picture for pastoral ministry as clearly defined by scripture, and defining how that understanding would relate to friendly cooperation within the bounds of the SBC.
The Sunday after the convention, much of my sermon happened to focus on the positive example of Hannah presented in the book of 1 Samuel.  

This was not a “vote against women,” and this pastor is not “against women.”

I am against women doing things God neither created nor called them to do, in the same way I am opposed to men doing things they were neither created nor called to do, such as dressing like women, marrying men, or claiming they can be pregnant.
2. False Equivalence
This is when you treat two things as if they are the same, when in reality, important differences exist.  For example, you interpret a vote against women as pastors to mean that women can’t do any meaningful ministry.
So you might read, "SBC bans women from ministry."
The problem with this view is that the day before, we had just witnessed dozens of women commissioned for ministry as missionaries to great enthusiasm and thunderous applause.
Besides, if being a pastor was the only way anyone could do ministry, then 99% of the people in our churches would not have a place to do any ministry, regardless of gender.
Women are not banned from ministry, not in our church nor in the Bible.  
They can teach other women.  They can teach children.  They can serve meals, meet needs, and share the gospel with their children, neighbors, and friends.
This Sunday, a woman will help lead a song and probably pray during our service.
We are not, have not, and will not “ban women from ministry.”
3. Hasty Generalization
This is when you draw one big ole conclusion from one narrow fact.
So, a reporter might say something like: “The SBC thinks women are inferior."
I simply do not believe the people in my church, who listen to me preach week after week, are inferior to me.

Whether you stand behind the pulpit or sit in front of it does not determine your worth, dignity, or value in the eyes of the Lord.

Any pastor worth his salt knows that many of the Christians sitting in front of the pulpit are far more holy than the man standing behind it.

4. Loaded Language / Appeal to Emotion
This is a rampant and repeat offender in our day.  This is when you use emotionally charged language to persuade rather than using facts or evidence.
So you might write something like: "SBC silences women" instead of “SBC votes to uphold the biblical definition of a pastor.”
Can you spot the difference?
There is a lot of money in this fallacy, and our favorite podcasters know it.

The Bigger Issue

So all of these people from outside the SBC have used logical fallacies to cause quite a stir, it seems.

But there are bigger issues than pagan news outlets using unequal weights and measures.

My concern has been the amount of professing Christians whose issues with the decision have been numerous and loud and lacking specific scripture.  

I haven’t seen many, if any, negative posts about the SBC’s vote that have gone on to use scripture to explain away the clear teaching that the role and function of pastor is reserved for men.

But even if there have been a few posts here and there that attempt to explain away Paul’s clear teaching in Timothy, there is a bigger issue.

This debate isn’t ultimately about a proof text here or there in one book of the Bible. It is about God’s good design for sex and gender stretching back to the very first book of the Bible, and then catapulting from there across the entirety of the 66 book canon.

We aren’t actually debating a few verses of the Bible, we are debating the function and role of men and women in general.

Let me introduce a few more terms, if you’re still with me.

Egalitarian and Complementarian

The terms have their own issues, but for our purposes, they are helpful.

An egalitarian is someone who views the roles and functions of men and women as fundamentally interchangeable.

A complementarian is someone who, broadly speaking, views men and women as having equal worth and value, but differing roles and functions by God’s design.

The reason much of our complementarian reasoning has fallen short in recent years is that we have simply stopped at a few key verses that define the pastorate.

I am not simply asking you to evaluate a statement from Paul in the pastoral epistles (although that should clearly settle it).

I am asking you to go back with me to the garden.  

What’s at stake here is not simply, “Will the world’s largest protestant denomination allow women to preach on Sunday?”

The issue is:  “Did God make man and woman fundamentally different and for different purposes?”

The biggest reason many people have an objection to a male only pastorate is not because of their particular interpretation of a passage in the pastoral epistles, it is because they have bought into our culture’s lie that men and women are interchangeable.

If men and women are interchangeable, then of course a woman can pastor!  

But they are not interchangeable.  They are unique by God’s good design.

And this is my charge and challenge to my complementarian friends and my complementarian church.  

It’s courageous, sure, in the face of a feminist culture and society, to stand on God’s word and hold the line with a vote that clarifies the role of pastor as being reserved for men only.

But the question is this: will courage for us be a mere white knuckled grip on a few verses that we actually aren’t comfortable with concerning male only pastors, or will we give ourselves wholly and happily to God’s good design for sex and gender in all of scripture?

Let’s not just be bold about who can preach on Sunday morning, let’s go beyond that and enthusiastically champion God’s good design for manhood and womanhood in all of life.

Men and women are different.  And this is good. Christian, don’t apologize for this, promote it.

We are losing a generation of young men who have been told that their masculinity is a toxic problem not a transcendent gift.

And we are losing a generation of young women who are being told they can and should do everything men do.

The church has the fix.  And we have the fix because we have a word from the Lord on the matter.  We have the instruction manual, written by the creator Himself.


Let me quote Doug Ponder and Bryan Laughlin on this point in an article that you should go read, found here.

“First, we must see the biblical teaching on the sexes as good, not just right. The Bible is not bitter medicine. Indeed, for those who know the God of Scripture, they are soul-reviving statutes intended for our good (Ps. 19:7–11). The problem we face at present is that many Christians are embarrassed by unpopular doctrines, doctrines which they increasingly find unhelpful or unnecessary because they have unknowingly accepted certain feminist assumptions. The only antidote is to trust the wisdom and love of God. We must believe that he knows better than us and that he has our best interests in mind. This is the first and most crucial step for embracing God’s design for men and women.” (This article was first published on Sola Ecclesia, the online theological journal of Grimké Seminary.).

Good. Not just right.

Is that how you view God’s design for male and female?

So what’s the bottom line in all of this?

It’s this:  I am happy for a church that enthusiastically embraces God’s design for the sexes.

You are courageous, you have biblical convictions, and for that I am thankful to the Lord.  You make my job, to stand on the Bible in the face of a hostile culture, easier.

But let’s go further.  Let’s not settle for a biblically sound but bitter spirited embrace of what God says, while secretly wishing it were different.

Let’s humbly submit ourselves to God’s word in all areas of life, particularly as it relates to sex and gender, with happiness and hope.

Let us with joy discover the beauty and wisdom in God’s good design for men and women.

When your unbelieving coworker, or your friend who’s part of a more liberal denomination, asks you about your denomination’s recent vote, I beg you:  Do not cower.  Do not feel guilty.  Do not rush to explain all the things your church still allows women to do.

Just say:  Yes, our pastor voted for the amendment. We are happy to celebrate God’s good design for men and women.

I leave you with a final illustration, one I believe I got from John Piper over the years somewhere along the way.



Imagine a husband and wife are lying in bed at 2 in the morning.

They hear a sound.  A bump in the night.

Stop.  Ask yourself - who should get up and go investigate?

Now ask yourself, why him?

You know the man should go investigate. This is by God’s design.  

He is physically stronger and emotionally wired for that type of conflict in a way that his wife is not.

This is good for the man, and particularly good for the woman.

At this point, let me bring it back to the role and function of pastor.

Pastoring is an outflow of the man’s general calling to lead, guide, and protect.

The man protects his house.  And the pastor protects his flock.

It’s been widely pointed out that the number of aspiring pastors has declined in recent years.  There are simply more pulpits than pastors.

To be sure, there are a variety of factors.  

But no doubt, one of the factors is that we have tamed, civilized, and ultimately effeminized the role of pastor to the point that our young men do not find it a high calling or a sacred duty.

And so, we have come to the place where many evangelicals can’t think of any reason why a woman couldn’t or shouldn’t pastor.

We have lost the biblical vision for the role, and for men in general.

This is our moment.  Not just as a denomination, but as a culture.  There is a noise at the door.  A bump in the night.

The world, the flesh, and the devil are telling us that gender is a social construct.

“Women can marry women.  

Men can have babies.

It doesn’t matter who preaches on Sunday morning.”

God is calling us to something more.  Something better.  Something satisfying. Something high and holy.

It’s time we wake up.

Let’s go meet the sound, with the joy and boldness of the Holy Spirit coursing through our spiritual veins, and pray that God sends the necessary revival to change a society from the inside out.