In John 1:46, Nathaniel asked, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” I want to ask a similar question: “Can anything clear come out of confusion?” One of the consistent arguments for the Law Amendment has been that, if approved, it will bring much-needed clarity to the SBC. Here’s how sbcamendment.org puts it:
This is why the amendment is so important. Amending the constitution—which carries a greater binding authority than the Baptist Faith & Message (2000)—would clearly define who is and is not part of the SBC. Such an amendment could add stability to our convention for decades, and guard us from the drift toward liberalism.[1]
While the notion that the SBC is either in the process or in danger of a “drift toward liberalism” is surely debatable, setting that aside, an examination of the amendment itself disproves the claim that it will bring clarity. Indeed, if passed, the Law Amendment will not only fail to provide clarity, it will likely lead to increased confusion.
Here’s the Law Amendment (in bold) in its context:
The Convention will only deem a church in friendly cooperation with the Convention… which… affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.[2]
One of the repeated refrains in this discussion over “pastors” is that words matter. That’s true, especially when it comes to the SBC Constitution, as the earlier quote from sbcamendment.org acknowledges. In that spirit, putting the words of the amendment under the microscope reveals three significant problems—three problems that should concern even its supporters.
First, based on the word “or,” the Law Amendment is self-contradictory.
Second, puzzlingly, the Law Amendment excludes the word “overseer.”
Third, by including the phrase “any kind of,” the Law Amendment broadens the discussion, creating more questions and confusion than it claims to resolve.
The Law Amendment’s Self-Contradiction
The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (BF&M), affirms there are two offices in the church; sbcamendment.org references this more than once (e.g., Q8. Doesn’t the SBC already prohibit women from being pastors? And Q9. Does the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M) talk only about a “Senior” pastor?), and makes it a key pillar undergirding the Law Amendment. Here’s what the BF&M says:
Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. 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.[3]
Law Amendment advocates claim opponents who see the senior/lead pastor as being different from say a children’s pastor violate Scripture and the BF&M by attempting to create a third office. But this is precisely what the Law Amendment does with the word “or.” Instead of stating “only men as any kind of pastor/elder,” “or” drives a wedge between “pastor” and “elder.” Or creates distinctiveness. You can have ice cream or cake (but not both). You can go to the zoo or the park (but not both). The Law Amendment creates two entities: one “pastor” and one “elder.” It throws open wide a door allowing a pastor not to be an elder and an elder not to be a pastor.
Perhaps this was done because some SBC churches practice ecclesiology this way. In recent years, some churches have opted to have “staff elders,” who are considered and referred to as pastors, and “lay elders,” who are neither considered nor referred to as pastors. While both staff and lay elders generally have spiritual oversight of the church, one key difference is that often only staff elders preach.
Perhaps the Law Amendment was intentionally crafted to address such a partition between “pastor” and “elder.” Perhaps the concern is churches having male “pastors” but “female” lay elders, so “or” was inserted. However, whatever the reason, whether on purpose or by accident, the Law Amendment parses one church office into two, resulting in three total offices: “pastor,” “elder,” and “deacon.”
Can anything clear come out of confusion?
The Law Amendment’s Omission
While the inclusion of “or” is problematic, so is the omission of the word it seems to have replaced: “overseer.” Granted, overseer is likely not used quite often in the local church today, but it is not an unimportant word in this discussion. The NIV and CSB use “pastor” once (Eph. 4:11) and “overseer” six times in the NT (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet. 2:25). The NET uses “pastor” once and “overseer” five times. The NKJV uses “pastor” once and “overseer” four times. The ESV does not use “pastor” but does use “overseer” six times.
Once again, if words matter, and if the Law Amendment is designed to bring clarity, it’s quite curious that this important word was neglected. Why not replicate the BF&M for ultra-clarity and consistency? While the following scenario is unlikely, it does reveal the potential folly of such an omission: As written, the Law Amendment would give cause for the SBC to deem an SBC church with a “Woman’s Ministry Pastor” who has no spiritual authority and never preaches not to be in friendly cooperation, but the Law Amendment in of itself does not directly address an SBC church with a female “Senior Overseer” who does have spiritual authority and who does preach. This is a glaring oversight for what is supposed to bring complete clarity to the issue.
Can anything clear come out of confusion?
The Law Amendment’s Myopia
Not only does the Law Amendment create a third office in the church, but it also recognizes variety within the office(s) of at least “pastor” and possibly “elder” too. An SBC church is to have “only men as any kid of pastor or elder.” There is not just one kind of “pastor”; there are multiple kinds. This phrasing acknowledges another ecclesiological reality in SBC churches: not all “pastors” function the same way. Some (e.g., senior pastors) have leadership authority over the entire church; others (e.g. student pastors) do not. Some preach (e.g., teaching pastors); others do not (e.g., executive pastors or lay elders).
Yet, sbcamendment.org argues that the office, function, and title of “pastor” are fused such that they cannot be parsed. This is why, a church with a female “children’s pastor” cannot be tolerated—even if that person has no spiritual authority and never preaches. Here are several places at sbcamendment.org where this point is made:
The various titles used by the New Testament match the functions, the work of a pastor. A pastor is a spiritual overseer of a church, keeping watchful care of the work and faith and practice of a church…A pastor is to preach and teach the word, to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. A pastor is to maintain sound doctrine and practice in a church.[4]
We may not disconnect the function of the office from the office itself. In other words, the function of teaching and preaching is part of what establishes a pastor’s authority.[5]
The office of pastor is the teaching office in the life of the local church. And if we cannot agree on what a pastor is and WHO a pastor is, then that means we can’t agree on who should be leading our churches.[6]
Yet, despite the adamance that office, function, and title cannot be parsed, and this being a second critical leg propping up the Law Amendment, it fails to address an issue far more common in SBC churches than female pastors with spiritual authority and who preach—male “pastors” who fail to function as pastors by this definition. The Law Amendment, by its language, considers that non-leading, non-preaching female “Woman’s Ministry Pastor” to be a greater threat to the “conservative” nature of the SBC than the male “Media Pastor” who fails to meet the criteria of the office by failing to function as a pastor. Indeed, what’s worse, the Law Amendment gives cover to churches with lay elders who fail to fulfill the stated function of the office. For the Law Amendment to be taken seriously, all supposed improper uses of the title should be addressed.
Can anything clear come out of confusion?
Conclusion
Consider what we must assume and ignore to pass the Law Amendment:
- We must assume there is a crisis of a liberal drift, or a propensity for such, in the SBC.
- But we must ignore the effective mechanisms already in place to prevent such a slide.
- We must assume the office, function, and title of “pastor” are inseparably fused.
- But we must ignore how churches often have male “pastors” who fail to align office, function, and title, and that the Law Amendment itself allows for this.
- We must assume the Law Amendment provides complete clarity.
- But we must ignore the confusion that “or,” “any kind of,” and the omission of “overseer” create.
- We must assume that any church or individual opposed to the Law Amendment is liberal or is giving cover for liberal theology.
- But we must ignore that being in friendly cooperation is about shared theology and practice much more than about shared language.
- We must assume the Law Amendment is good for the entirety of the SBC.
- But we must ignore how women in the SBC, especially, are made to feel as if they have targets on them because of this narrow amendment.
For these reasons and many more, the Law Amendment should be defeated in Indianapolis.
Brian Dembowczyk (PhD. Midwestern Basptist Theological Seminary) served in local church ministry for 17 years in churches in Florida, Maryland, and Kentucky before going to work for Lifeway. He is now in Bible publishing. Brian, his wife Tara, and their three children, Joshua, Hannah, and Caleb, live in middle Tennessee. You can connect with him on Twitter at @BrianDembo.
Footnotes:
[1] Q8. Doesn’t the SBC already prohibit women from being pastors? (https://sbcamendment.org/home-2/frequently-asked-questions/)
[2] Q1. What is the proposed amendment? (https://sbcamendment.org/home-2/frequently-asked-questions/)
[3] Baptist Faith & Message 2000, Article VI. The Church (https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/#vi)
[4] Q10. How does the Amendment’s use of “Pastor of any kind” provide clarity on title, role, and function of the pastoral office? (https://sbcamendment.org/home-2/frequently-asked-questions/)
[5] Q22. Can’t women preach as long as it is under the authority of male pastors? (https://sbcamendment.org/home-2/frequently-asked-questions/)
[6] Q28. Hasn’t the debate over women pastors largely become a matter of semantics over substance? (https://sbcamendment.org/home-2/frequently-asked-questions/)