Each summer the Southern Baptist Convention holds its annual business meeting in a different city. This year's meeting was held in Indianapolis at which nearly 11,000 members from SBC churches served as "messengers" who heard reports and voted on various matters. These 11,000 messengers make up  0.027% of the 4 million SBC members who actually attend church reguarly (the SBC reports a total membership of 13 million - another important issue in and of itself). The messengers at Indy represented 46,906 SBC churches. That number became 46,905 - one less - after messengers voted overwhelmingly at the June meeting to remove First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia for its stated egalitarian postion - i.e. that they would consider hiring a woman as a "Senior Pastor". The messengers were not reflecting, in their removal of this church, a misogynistic temperament. Rather, they were reflecting in their vote a commitment to uphold the authority of Scripture:

  1 Timothy 2:12 ESV - I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

  1 Timothy 3:2 ESV - Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

   Article VI. of the SBC's statement of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, 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". The problem is that when some folks hear the word "pastor" they immediately limit that to what, by tradition, has been referred to as the "Senior Pastor" or "Lead Pastor". Such an understanding leaves the door open to women serving in other pastoral roles; i.e. some would be ok with a woman serving as an Associate Pastor, Youth Pastor, etc. This is is why Mike Law, a pastor in Virginia, proposed an amendment in 2023 to change the SBC's Constitution  to state that the only kind of church in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention is one that “Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” If this amendment, which became known as the "Law Amendment", had passed this summer, it would make it clear where the SBC stands and it would further empower the SBC Credentials Committee to address the cooperative status of SBC churches whose position and practice allow for women to serve in any kind of pastoral role - not just in the "Senior Pastor" position.  For the Law Amendment  to be adopted it required a 2/3 majority vote at two consecutive annual meetings. Here is what happened:

• 2023 - The Law Amendment was proposed and passed with over 80%  voting in favor of it.
• 2024 - The majority of SBC Messengers (61.45%) voted in favor, but it failed to receive the required 2/3 to pass.

What happened between this year and last year?  Why did 38.55% vote against the Law Amendment in 2024?  

1. It is necessary to acknowledge the presence and influence of a small minority of SBC churches/members who are theologically leftward. For example, one study has estimated that around 2.57% of SBC churches (1,225 churches) have a woman serving in some kind of position with the title of "pastor". It should also be acknowledged that some churches may have women serving who function as a pastor but do not hold the title. And it should also be fairly stated that some SBC churches have women who have the title "pastor" on a church staff who nevertheless in their role do not teach or excercise authority over men (to which I would say, "Good. So, keep functioning biblically and change the title of that postion to reflect the authority of the Bible"). The reality of a liberal minority  of SBC churches (at least on the issue of women pastors) is reflected in recent votes to remove SBC churches. In 2023, 11.36% of messengers voted "no" to removing Saddleback Church for having female pastors. At this year's convention (2024), 8% of messengers voted "no" to remove First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virgina who holds to an egalitarian position. These are the churches that need to either leave the SBC or repent regarding their position and practice regarding female pastors.
2. In 2023 and 2024, some voted "no" to the Law Amendment, who are, for the most part, complementarian in their positon and practice, but voted "no" for one or more of the following reasons: a) They see the issue of a woman holding the title of "pastor" in a non-senior pastoral position (i.e. a "Children's Pastor" for example) as merely an arugment about semantics; b) They are concerned about the precedent set of changing our SBC by-laws and where that could lead; c) Some fear that passing the Law Amendment will lead to the loss of ethnic churches in the SBC wwhere women are more likely to hold associate ministry roles using the title pastor.
3. Then there are those who voted "no" in 2024 that may have voted "yes" in 2023 because of the influence of some leaders in the SBC who within the past year, though complementarian in their stated convictions, have spoken out against the Law Amendment (like former SBC President, Pastor J.D. Greear and the new SBC's newly appointed CEO, Jeff Iorg).
4. And there are those who voted "no" in 2024 that may have voted "yes" because, according to Pastor Marc Minter, "during any given year the SBC annual meeting is populated by a large percentage of first-time or occasional messengers. As such, the vote of the messengers can and does vacillate, sometimes significantly". 

What's the big deal?

  There are three reasons why the presence of these churches in the SBC is a concern: 1) Simply put, titles matter. Referring to a woman as a pastor, of any kind, undermines the authority of Scripture. Many mainlain denominations who have embraced an egalitarian position have went on to affirm the ordination of homosexuals, etc.; 2) Yes, these churches are autonomous, but any church that is deemed to be in "friendly cooperation" with the SBC can send messengers who can vote on crucial issues at our annual meetings - we should remember this as we consider the fact that the Law Amendment failed to pass this year by less than 5% of the messengers voting. 3) The members of these churches are eligible to be appointed to serve on SBC boards and committees which shape the direction of the SBC.

 Why should we be hopeful? 

• The majority of SBC messengers voted "yes" to approve the Law Amendment.
•   The evening before the vote on the Law Amendment, 92% of the SBC messengers voted in favor of removing the historic First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia whose Senior Pastor is a man and has a Children's Pastor who is a woman. A report by the SBC's Credentials Committee stated that when the church was contacted and asked as to whether they would ever consider calling a man to serve as a the Senior Pastor, "the church responded affirmatively saying, yes, they would because they do not ‘believe that the Bible limits the fulfillment of this office exclusively to men.’”
• The newly elected President of the SBC, Clint Pressley, voted "yes" to approve the Law Amendment. Pressely is also a member of the Counsel for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). The two most progressive candidates, who were also not in favor of the Law Amendment, did not even receive enough votes to make it to the second ballot run-off. Regarding Pressley's election, Pastor Heath Lambert of FBC Jacksonville, Florida wrote, "This choice is so significant because the appointments that Pressley makes to our convention boards and entities will shape convention life for years to come. It is significant that among an impressive list of six candidates, Southern Baptists chose to trust him with this important work".
• During the SBC's Excutive Committee meeting in February, Immanuel Baptist Church in Paducah, Kentucky was removed for having a faith and practice that does not closely identify with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith, as demonstrated by the church having a female lead pastor functioning in the office of pastor.
•  The SBC has been here before - and it was much worse. By God's grace, over time, there was a conservative resurgence in the SBC. I will share more on this in follow-up post. 
• We are continuing to cooperate to fuflill the Great Commission. At this year's annual meeting, 83 new missionaries were appointed to serve around the world, some in closed countries (evidenced at the meeting by the need to conceal some of their identities and only show their silhouettes).

In the meantime . . .

There are other recent and ongoing issues in the SBC that require our prayerful attention. When we give money through the Cooperative Program or send members to be trained in our seminaries and Bible colleges, we want to do so with confidence that those funds are being used wisely and those individuals are being trained biblically.  That responsibility of monitoring our church's involvement with the SBC lies primarily with me and those who will serve alongside me as Elders. 

Note: This post is the the summary of a portion of a presentation I shared recently with our church family regarding our ongoing voluntary cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention . I read somewhere that someone said "the SBC  is not essential, but it does matter". I agree with that statement. In recent years, valid concerns have been raised about the trajectory of the SBC - ones we do not take lightly. Yet, as I shared with our church family, we have reason to be optimistic regarding the SBC.  I will elaborate on those issues of concern as well as the reasons for optimism in future posts.