I am an unabashed and committed complementarian. I believe that God created us male and female, in his image. Men and women are equal at the foot of the cross – equally in need of grace, equally loved, equally valued, and equally called to serve in God’s kingdom – but God also made us different. In certain limited ways, we are different. God has reserved certain leadership roles in the church for men. Many Christians disagree with me but that is what my study of the word of God has led me to believe.
- The pastor/governing elders of the church should be men.
- Those who preach and teach the word authoritatively in the gatherings of the church should be men.
- I have not invited women to preach in my pulpit as a pastor.
I say all of this just to make it clear that anyone who calls me an egalitarian or liberal is straining the meaning of that term.
On the other hand, I believe that Southern Baptists do not and have not defined ONE version of complementarianism as our only version. I have had women lead worship in my churches and I have friends who find that offensive. I have other friends who think that as long as the Senior Pastor is a male (to give male leadership), then having women serve as staff ministers in subordinate positions is fine.
We, as Southern Baptists, have a distinctive called autonomy. That means that within the boundaries of our confession, each of our churches is able to operate according to its own beliefs and convictions. There are doctrinal boundaries and parameters, but there is also freedom. I have close friends who are more conservative than I am on this issue, and others that are less so.
As long as pastors and churches fall under the boundaries of the BF&M, as long as they ascribe to male headship in the ministry (in general) I am willing to partner with them in our mission work. I am unwilling to force all Southern Baptists to conform to MY views, to enforce my views as the only view.
If the Law Amendment is adopted, I would not be affected. My views would survive scrutiny, but a lot of my friends would come under the harsh glare of the policing efforts of the Law Supporters, who want to enforce conformity to THEIR VIEWS on all of us. This is not healthy for the SBC.
I will not vote for the Law Amendment and encourage the SBC to defeat it for the following reasons.
1. The Law Amendment is UNNECESSARY!
Last year, in New Orleans, we voted to remove two churches that were decidedly NOT complementarian, Fern Creek and Saddleback. We did not need the Law Amendment to do so. What does the Law Amendment add to this effort?
According to the originator of the Amendment, he wants to pursue casting any church that has a youth, music, children’s, or even women’s staff minister who is a woman OUT of the convention. I heard his say this in an interview. Of course, his desire to do this does not mean the convention will do so, but that was his desire, his intent.
What does the Law Amendment accomplish that our current BF&M and Credentials committee process does not? We already have a process to deal with egalitarian churches.
The Law Amendment is unnecessary.
2. The Law Amendment is EXCESSIVE.
We hear the refrain of growing egalitarianism all the time. It simply isn’t factual. There are about the same VERY SMALL number of churches with female pastors that there were 20 years ago. There are a slightly larger number of churches with staff pastors who are women. All told, the number is small and statistics do NOT support the idea that it is a large or a growing problem.
Fern Creek, which was put out of our convention last year, had the same female in the pulpit for over 20 years. It was not a new problem.
The Law Amendment is a nuclear weapon being aimed at a gnat.
3. The Law Amendment is REDUNDANT.
We have the Baptist Faith and Message, which defines our convention as complementarian. We have no need to encode our theology in our Constitution and Bylaws.
4. The Law Amendment is a SLIPPERY SLOPE.
Slippery slope arguments are always, well, slippery slopes, but one wonders what doctrine will be next. If we start excluding those who disagree with the Southern Seminary-approved view of complementarianism, which doctrine will they enforce conformity on next?
5. The Law Amendment DEVIATES historically.
When we were fighting the Conservative Resurgence battle, we focused on doctrinal conformity at our entities, especially at our seminaries. We made sure that professors toed the line, and that our missionaries conformed to the BF&M.
During the Conservative Resurgence, we NEVER went after liberal or moderate churches!
The Law Amendment’s approach – kicking churches out of the convention because they don’t agree with our views on a particular issue – is novel. Inerrancy was a fundamental issue, but we never threatened churches that disagreed with excommunication.
Conclusion
I could probably find other reasons, but these are my primary concerns. I do not believe we need the Law Amendment to remain doctrinally faithful. We are not drifting and we do not need the extreme measures this amendment recommends to keep us faithful to God’s word.
