For those unaware, Southern Seminary president Al Mohler was recently seated at a panel hosted by the Kenwood Institute. The topics covered contentious issues in SBC life, including the abuse and financial crises, along with the issue of women serving in ministry and how it relates to the proposed “Law Amendment.”
When asked by discussion moderators and CBMW members Colin Smothers and Denny Burk about the role of women pastors in SBC churches, Mohler would suggest, “The idea that you would have the word ‘pastor’ applied to a woman in the Southern Baptist Convention—to the vast majority of Southern Baptists, I don’t think has ever made sense.”
This framing is disingenuous.
Perhaps the issue here is that what does not make sense to white males in the seat of denominational power with ties to an institution founded upon slave-holding theology makes perfect sense to minorities.
What does not make sense to men who refuse to see the Bible’s ringing endorsement of women using their gifts in the church under the leadership and watchful care and protection of their senior pastor makes perfect sense to those who know what it is to be denied a role in the life of the church because of something they cannot control, regardless if it is skin color or gender.
What does not make sense to the “majority” to which Mohler claims to belong seems to make perfect sense to countless Southern Baptist pastors, professors, and minorities, including Asian and African Americans.
After the disfellowshipping of Rick Warren and Saddleback, the National African American Fellowship, SBC (NAAF) penned a letter to SBC President Bart Barber outlining the widespread concern many predominantly African American churches in SBC life have with this new threat of creedalism and autonomy infringement. This letter was not coming from the fringe of SBC life, either, as NAAF has nearly 4,000 churches and its letter outlining concerns with the Law Amendment was endorsed by former SBC President J.D. Greear.
Many of the 4,000 churches affiliated with NAAF unashamedly hold to the conservative, BFM-compatible, and biblical opinion that women may be freed up to serve in the local church in shepherding ministries under the authority of a male senior pastor who has been duly credentialed, called, and installed by the congregation. This female-empowering, congregational, and softly complementarian position has persisted in SBC life without controversy until recently.
Would Al Mohler dare suggest the positions of the pastors of these 4,000 churches don’t make sense? It is likely he would not, but that did not stop him from taking a cheap shot from the insular, predominantly male, White, and Calvinist fortress that is Southern Seminary.
But African Americans are not the only group profoundly affected by the threat of creedalism and autonomy infringement. Other minority groups in SBC life have vested interests in these debates.
The Chinese Baptist Fellowship (CBF) put out an open letter that received coverage in Baptist Press and the prestigious evangelical publication Christianity Today.
In that letter, Chinese Baptist leaders shared that “women have held a vital role in the Chinese church.” They noted their culture, history, and language carry a range of words for women in ministry, which include the following words: minister, teacher, evangelist, and Bible woman.
The CBF said that because it is now the practice of some churches to give the title “pastor” to non-ordained church staff, any of these Chinese words may also be faithfully translated as “pastor.”
There are historical and cultural elements to this decision in staff titles among Chinese churches, too:
“Due to persecution and a lack of mature male leaders, women played a pivotal role in evangelism, teaching, and discipleship. This still takes place today within the Chinese church in China and among the Chinese Diaspora including North America with women having shepherding roles and caring responsibilities for women’s, children and youth, administrative, and other ministries under the male leadership of a senior pastor.”
Like NAAF, the CBF also expressed concern over the threat of church autonomy being violated by anti-women creedalism and misunderstandings from translating Chinese words into English, yet Al Mohler would also have us believe the position, cultural heritage, language, and history of the CBF doesn’t make sense.
Mohler was later asked how he would respond to the charge that what Law Amendment proponent call “a more robust confessionalism” (by which is meant a strict policing and shunning of churches who have women serving on staff in pastoral roles, but subordinate to a male senior pastor) could potentially violate the tried-and-true Baptist principle of local church autonomy.
Mohler derisively and divisively replied: “Okay, now that is the most ridiculous statement.” Mohler then joked with the moderator, “I put up with all the nonsense you said up front so far.”
Al Mohler’s condescending and cavalier attitude to those who have rightly expressed concern over churches acting autonomously in their hiring, staffing, and ministry decisions is beneath the dignity of his status as an entity head for several reasons, but not the least of which includes many softly complementarian churches with female pastors under the authority of male senior pastors who are in alignment with the BF&M as adopted in 2000 giving portions of tithes to the Cooperative Program from the hard-earned money of their congregants. Dr. Mohler would do well to remember it is not advisable to disenfranchise or dismiss large sections of his institution’s constituency.
Many in SBC life have begun to sound the alarm over an increasingly encroaching threat of creedalism that threatens the autonomy of local churches. Two highly esteemed Southern Baptist professors, Dr. Malcolm Yarnell and Dr. Steve McKinion, recently expressed their worry over this very issue in an editorial for Baptist Press. Here is a relevant passage from that excellent piece:
“We believe Baptists must be careful never to fall into the horrific error of state churches who wrongly imposed their confessions on others, including on Baptists. Indeed, Baptist confessionalism ceases to be Baptist when it is used as a weapon against others rather than as an invitation to consider the Good News of Jesus Christ, the great truths of His Word, and the free offer of salvation to all who will believe in and confess Him as their only Lord.”
Would Dr. Mohler dare accuse these two highly intelligent men and seasoned SBC statesmen of “nonsense”? Would he suggest their thoughts “don’t make sense”? I think not.
Dr. Mohler’s contempt for those of us who commission women pastors in our autonomous congregations out of reverence for the Scriptures and under the leadership of the Spirit also reeks of a master-slave hierarchy that is unique to the worldview of Southern Seminary. Indeed, by his incendiary remarks, he has effectively dismissed the well-founded concerns of his minority SBC brothers and sisters, if not validated them.
(He also did this when he refused to outright condemn the notorious Confederate sympathizer, credibly accused predator, and Conservative Resurgence architect Paul Pressler when he came on the cusp of excusing him because Pressler “had many enemies.”)
How, then, are we to make sense of what Al Mohler claims doesn’t make sense to those in his theological tribe? How are we to make sense of his suggestion that women pastors don’t make sense and that concerns raised by churches who employ them are “nonsense”?
I would suggest what is now abundantly clear to anyone with eyes to see that the push from hyper-complementarians to adopt the Law Amendment is nothing less than a concerted effort to cull minority and other women-empowering churches from life in the SBC.
It is true the advocates of the Law Amendment do not want women to have a place as pastors in the SBC. But the same is also true of their contempt for women who serve as children and youth directors, leaders, ministers, teachers, evangelists, and “Bible women,” likely because they know many of those Bible women threaten their own security and power in the SBC because they run the risk of being out-shepherded, out-preached, and “out-Bible’d.”
If in God’s sovereignty the Law Amendment passes, I believe this would indicate honesty and transparency for the SBC’s true anti-women and anti-minority convictions. The lion’s share of Cornerstone’s funds is currently distributed to missional and educational causes. The Baptist General Convention of Texas receives a monthly donation from Cornerstone Church, and a modest amount is designated for the CP while we’re awaiting the final vote on the Law Amendment.
We will remain contributors to the BGCT as we fully embrace them and their respect for our autonomy, but we will no longer designate even a modest portion to the Cooperative Program if the Law Amendment succeeds. We simply do not have the bandwidth to financially support a funding program that currently has no minority serving as an entity head, nor one that restricts Chinese, African American, and even Anglo-American SBC congregations from following the dictates of their conscience, biblical convictions, and values by recognizing women can receive a pastoral gift from God in partnership with male leadership with affirmation of their gift.
The historic and current posture towards minorities and women in leadership being practiced and “canonized” in the constitution by virtue of the Law Amendment would be a bridge too far for me to cross. However, if there is a redeeming virtue to the potential passing of the Law amendment, it would be, again, the honesty, transparency, and definitive position it represents—one our church would find restrictive, harmful, and unbiblical.
Should the amendment pass, my sole regret would be the obfuscation in which the architects of the Conservative Resurgence engaged when they had the opportunity to be transparent when the BF&M was revised in 2000.
Now, churches, women, and minorities will clearly know if they belong in the SBC who don’t believe the Law Amendment should be a litmus test of orthodoxy.
Requests from my African American brothers and others who disagree with the Law Amendment to remain in the SBC until this matter reached resolution, is why I have remained thus far. My belief systems and Mohler’s belief systems on this matter are irreconcilable. The only difference is, I am not trying to force him out if he does not conform to my viewpoints. But he wants me out if I don’t conform to his viewpoints. As is often said in the African American community, “make it make sense.”
