Baptists gathered for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) held June 8-12 in Indianapolis, Indiana took up a proposed constitutional amendment that would have defined as unacceptable the use of the title “pastor” for women. Delegates to the gathering, known as messengers in SBC parlance, also considered a Baptist response to the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF).
The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (BF&M 2000) serves as the uniting statement of faith for the SBC. It 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.”
A church with practices not aligned with the BF&M 2000 can be disfellowshipped, or deemed not in friendly cooperation, through a review by the Convention’s Credentials Committee. An amendment was proposed to change the constitution to include a clause stating, “The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work, which… affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”
Passage of the amendment would have automatically disfellowshipped local churches not adhering to the BF&M 2000.
In receiving 61 percent of votes, the amendment failed to obtain a necessary two-thirds supermajority to change the constitution. This reversed a preliminary 2023 vote in favor of the official ban. Churches not in friendly cooperation will still be reviewed by the Credentials Committee and, when appropriate, submitted to messengers for final action.
These same messengers made clear the Convention’s conviction in removing, on the same issue, a prominent church from the “friendly cooperation” status by an overwhelmingly large margin. First Baptist Church of Alexandria, VA was removed from “friendly cooperation” status after the church expressed support for women serving as pastors.
The SBC’s confession of faith already states that “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” There is also already a mechanism to oust churches that do not adhere to this, which many delegates felt was sufficient without the added ban.
It is more than likely that many messengers concluded a widespread ban would take away the autonomy of the local church. The authority that the SBC is limited by its constitution (Article IV, Authority) states, “While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise authority over any other Baptist body, whether a church auxiliary organization, or convention.”
For Southern Baptists, autonomy means that “no other church or group of churches has any rightful control over another except as determined by that church independently. When churches work together it is by common consent for mutually agreed-upon purposes.”
As a Baptist, it is clear that most Southern Baptists are nearly unanimous in commitment to complementarian principles. However, there is disagreement in application of the principles. I expect these debates to continue. While almost all Baptists agree with the amendment that was proposed, it is more than likely they were worried about taking away the local autonomy of the local church. I agree with the principle of the ban that was proposed to be added to the constitution. At the same time, I can see why many delegates were concerned over the ban as well. There is already a capability to ban/remove a church from “friendly cooperation” status if they are found to be participating in practices not aligned with the BF&M. Therefore, it may seem excessive to institute a ban on top of the existing capability to remove churches.
In Vitro Fertilization
A resolution on IVF passed by a large margin after an open debate on the convention floor. The resolution recognizes that many Christian couples “experience the searing pain of infertility” and affirmed that “all children are a gift from the Lord regardless of the circumstances of their conception.”
The resolution goes on to state that “though all children are to be fully respected and protected, not all technological means of assisting human reproduction are equally God-honoring or morally justified.” The text lists concerns about IVF technology, with specific reference to the current procedure that often produces “excess” human embryos that will eventually be destroyed. Often, human embryos are selected based on quality or preference and sometimes undergo experimentation.
The SBC resolution reaffirms “the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in embryonic stage, and calls on believers “to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation”.
The IVF issue made headlines with a recent Supreme Court of Alabama decision that focused the attention of evangelical Christians. Unlike abortion, American Evangelicals have been reluctant to engage with the issue of IVF. Many Christians state belief in the sanctity and dignity of human life at every stage, from conception to natural death. But, in ethical issues related to IVF, many are silent.
The SBC resolution is fully consistent with the Pro-Life movement despite being counter-cultural. The resolution affirmed the value/dignity of human life (including embryonic life) while encouraging the use or adoption of frozen embryos via IVF procedure rather than their destruction.
I don’t see the SBC IVF resolution as problematic. It is consistent with the Pro-Life movement and affirms the dignity of all human life. In vitro fertilization is part of a reproduction industry that turns human embryos into consumer products marketed to single women, same-sex couples, and others. The resolution encourages adoption of frozen embryos via the IVF procedure and redeems something out of the bad that is the IVF industry. Since the resolution is consistent with the Pro-Life movement, those that consider themselves to be Pro-Life should not have a problem with it.
In vitro fertilization is a contentious issue that is finally gaining the attention of many evangelicals and changing the mind of many in the Pro-Life movement.
Comment by Mark Adams on July 1, 2024 at 4:31 pm
First, I would like to comment on the Baptist Faith and Message. The Southern Baptist Convention started because a large group a Baptist Churches got together and decided that they could serve God better if they worked together to spread the word of God. These Baptist churches had many different beliefs, but as long as they believed that Jesus was our Lord and Savior then it was OK (to some extent). Baptists did not have a creed. They still do not have a creed. That is what made Baptists, Baptists. There was a Baptist Faith and Message that said what most of the Southern Baptist believe, but it was not something that was enforced.
Then in the late 90’s Paige Patterson and his followers took control of the SBC and brought in the 2000 BF&M. So, who is Paige Patterson. He is a man that hates women and believes that women are 2nd class citizens. I have met him. I have seen how his wife has to walk behind him and keep her head down to show she is lower than Paige is. He was also the man who brought in the idea to the SBC, that you had to be ultra conservative to be a Christian. He ran off or fired anyone that didn’t have his ultra conservative beliefs. He also fired lots of missionaries that would not sign the 2000 BF&M and agreed that women are supposed to be graciously submissive to men. If you study the history of Paige, he ended up getting fired from the SBC because of his hate towards women.
For some reason his 2000 BF&M remains. And it is used to kick churches out of the convention. Let’s be clear. Churches do not need to be part of the convention. The convention needs the churches. Not to mention since the 2000 BF&M the SBC has been on the decline. There is just a fraction of the number of missionaries there once was. Camps have closed. Churches have been kicked out. Lifeway has closed all its stores and is dying. They built a brand-new office building in Nashville and it stays empty. Unless there is a change, there will be a day when the SBC will shut down. And it’s all because it’s killing itself.
The SBC need to go back to what it once was. A servant of the churches and not a ruler of the churches. Church members complain that every year there is less and less people going to church. One of the main causes of less people going to church is because the church is running them off. If you believe that women are equal to men, you do not belong in our church. You see that in the news all the time. If you have any liberal or non-conservative views, then you do not belong in our church. I believe in John 3:16-17. I believe that John 3:17 is just as important as John 3:16. But apparently the SBC does not believe in John 3:17, because the SBC now condemns everyone that does not believe exactly what they believe. I also believe in Galatians 3:28 where it says “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female. for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Let me repeat that. Nor is there male and female. I’m fine with people saying they believe men should be pastors. But I think it’s wrong to condemn a church that thinks it’s ok for women to be pastors. You put John 3:17 and Galatians 3:28 together and I have a problem with how the SBC treats churches that have woman pastors. Just as a reminder, as Christians we are supposed to spread Love and not Hate.
Comment by MikeB on July 1, 2024 at 10:19 pm
Mark,
I’m curious what the end point of your logic is.
Are you OK with women in leadership and having a vote at the convention?
Are you OK with churches with divorced pastors? Pastors in an open unmarried relationship?
I’m just curious if there is an end point to your I’m OK if your church doesn’t have x but don’t stop us from having x … and sending x supporters to conventions.
Comment by John on July 2, 2024 at 12:12 pm
Perhaps it’s a bias that comes with being part of a denomination that has fully celebrated all the gifts and talents of both its men and women at all levels, but I still scratch my head at those like the SBC that think they can more effectively carry out their mission with one hand tied behind their back at all times. Failing to embrace and celebrate the women in their midst who are called to ordained ministry is holding them back. Of that I have no doubt. Another point, please stop using the term complementarianism to refer to the SBC teachings on women and ministry. This word didn’t even exist until 1988 (which means I’m older than it) when it was used by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in response to the rise of feminism in contemporary theology. They thought this term sounded nicer and less offensive than patriarchy, which is what the leadership of the male SBC and other like-minded denominations had been using unapologetically before. In other words, complementarianism is just the fluffy PC term for a much older and less nice ideology. You would be wise to abandon it, because using it only strengthens the case of the feminists. You’re defending patriarchy. If you can’t be proud of it, why do it? There’s nothing complementary about your theology because you’re maintaining a one-way barrier. You don’t insist all men become pastors. You don’t reprimand a church for letting men volunteer in the children’s programs or work in the kitchen during the potluck. There’s no office or role in the church exclusively reserved for women, but you think the office of pastor belongs only to men. How is that complementary? It’s not. It’s exclusionary. As Orwell would sum your position “All persons are equal in the eyes of God, but some persons are more equal than others.” If that is what you believe then be honest about it. Don’t come up with new deceitful terms trying to market it. Say what it is and nothing more.
Comment by MikeB on July 2, 2024 at 7:34 pm
John,
Like I asked Mark, where is your stopping point.
I’m willing to agree that the baptist denomination has severe problems.
But, is your disagreement with them based on scripture, or are you completely against any scriptural limits on the clergy?
Comment by John on July 2, 2024 at 8:59 pm
Mike,
I do disagree with them on scripture, as well as other things. I also believe their interpretation of scripture is sloppy in places and deliberately selective in others. For instance, the verses in 1 Timothy often cited by Southern Baptists to try to justify their prohibition of female ordination comes right before verses outlining the qualifications for a bishop. Yet the SBC has no bishops at all, so how can claim to be following the epistle properly when they fail to recognize one of the roles in the church covered in it? I also know that the majority of SBC congregations will not allow women to be deacons either, even though once again 1 Timothy directly sets out qualifications for women to be deacons. So only the convention can decide how high women can go in the church, but if a local congregation decides they should be held back further that’s fine? In your previous comment you asked whether Mark would be comfortable with a divorced pastor. I can only assume this comes from your interpretation of 1 Timothy 3: 1-7. Interestingly, while the SBC has historically “discouraged” divorce, including among the clergy it has no universal rule for removing or reprimanding divorced pastors or the congregations that accept them, unlike the way it handles women pastors. It would seem the SBC is much more lax in how it disciplines its men v. its women. And they wonder why there’s been so much abuse in the past. I would very much be against pastors openly living in sin and commiting adultery. I believe pastors (along with anyone else) who harass or abuse members of their congregation (men, women, or children) should be automatically defrocked and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What I don’t agree with is the unnecessary tying of the hands of faithful women in the church from living out their calling on the basis of sexist stereotypes and patriarchial rituals with no basis in reality. I studied the New Testament under a woman in seminary and she was one of the most brilliant people I ever met. Some of the best sermons I’ve ever heard were preached by women. And I learned more about how to pray and read the Bible from my mother and grandmother as a child than any man in family. No one is ever going to convince me that women are unfit to teach men.
Comment by MikeB on July 2, 2024 at 9:58 pm
John, I very much valued your answer, I have a concern for denominations that have no rules, eventually they will fall to a denominator like the UM where there are tons of leaders and delegates who have no accountability.
I do agree that the SBC especially has picked and chosen who not to punish, though I believe that a united ruleset that is clear and then enforced evenly is better than a every church do what they want and leadership punish only those it choses to.
Just like how SBC ignored the sins of male pastors, UM ignored the openly gay, openly pagan, openly atheistic clergy.
Both groups would have benefitted from clear rules evenly enforced.
As a by the aside, I do think SBC very much over limits women in the church.
Comment by PastorJah on July 6, 2024 at 8:03 pm
Jesus is the head of man, man is the head of the woman (man is the one accountable to God for women’s actions NOT the woman) women are to NOT teach men or be the heads of any Church. Woman can teach other women, children, and read the scripture for the body when they gather, but that is all period according The Word regardless of what you think, believe, or feel! If you don’t agree with The Word, then you are a liar and a hypocrite and you are the problem with the church as a whole spreading your ignorant false worldly anti-Christ theology and are not a Christian in any way, shape, or form. Read the Bible not some man or woman’s nonsense about the Bible! Have a nice day blind fools and white washed stones!
Comment by David Gingrich on July 7, 2024 at 8:37 am
Thank you to John and Mike B for the respectful dialogue. You are an example for all of us. Both make good points. Overall, I agree more with Mike B. I spent 15 years in the UMC, Because they refused to enforce a Discipline they had already adopted, the UMC is now a barren shell of what it once was.
Comment by John on July 8, 2024 at 1:35 pm
Pastor Jah,
My goodness! You sound very sure of yourself. Now you’ve got me wondering whether men should be pastors at all. Sounds like it’s gone your head.