Since the founding of the church in Acts 2, women have had a rich and wonderful variety of roles in the church. I’m personally indebted to my mom, grandma, wife, countless Sunday School teachers, kids ministry leaders, VBS directors, host families, outreach coordinators, prayer warriors, fellowship directors, women’s ministry directors, missions directors, faithful servants, volunteers, and so much more.

But when it comes to the office of pastor and the responsibility of teaching and exercising authority over church, God in his wisdom has chosen for men to be the ones to do it. This is not because men are somehow smarter, more valuable, or more spiritual than women. (Often the contrary!) The main reason is simply because God said it to be so. He gave instructions to his church. We honor him when we submit to the authority of scripture and respect the bounds he set up for men and women in the local church.

Last year, when a 90% majority of Southern Baptists voted to disfellowship from Saddleback Church because they had ordained several female pastors and were giving regular pulpit time to a female teaching pastor, all of us in the convention hall grieved. It was not a celebratory moment. It was a painful one. But I believe it was the right thing to do, showing commendable courage and conviction. I posted on social media at the time, “Big win today for complementarianism and faithfulness to scripture. #SBC2023.”

That little comment drew some vicious and obscene comments from strangers on Twitter that I won’t repeat here. But it also led to some constructive dialogue. If you’re wondering why the role of men and women in ministry still matters and why the Law Amendment is worth considering at SBC 2024, here is some of that conversation:

One friend wrote, “As a complementarian, I think the SBC sent a strong message that conveys that they are now a denomination that will cast out churches for disagreeing on tertiary doctrines that are disputable. I don’t think that is Christ honoring or mission advancing. I am curious about your perspective. What convinces you that this is a doctrine worth dividing over? We probably have a lot in common but I just don’t think it is worth dividing over 🙂”

My reply: Great question. Are women pastors a secondary or tertiary issues? I think all agree it is not a first order issue, like salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. However there are many brothers and sisters whom we love, but who we would have a hard time planting churches together. These often relate to ecclesiology issues like baptism, regenerate church membership, Lord’s Supper, and male/female roles. Having men as pastors is critical for several reasons: it obeys a specific qualification for pastoral leadership, it follows both the OT and NT model of spiritual leadership, it is rooted in the created order, it is a safeguard against false doctrine, and it strengthens the complementary nature of gender roles in the home. Time has shown that allowing female pastors are a slippery slope toward full blown theological liberalism. Once this line in the sand is crossed, it is almost impossible to prevent further theological compromises. I am grateful for the many women who serve in the church and have made a direct impact in my life. We simply obey this command because we love and trust our Lord Jesus Christ, who is head of his church.

He wrote back: “Thanks for sharing. It is much appreciated brother. I am glad we agree that it is not a first order issue. It seems to me that you think it is a secondary issue while I think it is tertiary issue. This difference is understandable and we probably can’t work out the nuances of that disagreement here lol What I would like to address is this: I am not fully convinced that egalitarianism is a slippery slope toward full blown theological liberalism. I know plenty of egalitarian pastors that stand strong on all of the central doctrines of the Christian faith. Do I also know some that have turned away from the truth? Sure. However, to say that it is almost impossible to prevent further and more serious theological compromises is both unfair and uncharitable to egalitarians. If someone is egalitarian because they are deciding to cherry pick the Scriptures according to their likes and dislikes, then I agree it is a slippery slope. However, I have read many egalitarians state their case in detail and they are thoroughly committed to Scripture and have reasonable interpretations of Scripture on this topic to back up their beliefs. To say that the majority of all egalitarians will eventually fully embrace theological liberalism is an assumption based in fear, not facts. When we assume the worst of our brothers and sisters in Christ that believe differently than us on disputable matters it unnecessarily divides the church. My motive in sharing this is love. I think too many churches and denominations are dividing over the wrong issues. I am thankful for your ministry and pray that God would continue to bless you! Thanks again for your kind and thoughtful response 🙂”

Another friend wrote: “I know plenty of churches who have woman who are pastors but hold a conservative view. I don’t think is slides into liberal theology.”

I said: Hey great to hear from you. There is a well worn path from ordaining women to embracing homosexuality and beyond. Wayne Grudem has written a book on the subject called Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism. Thankfully, not all churches take this path, but it’s harder to resist once the hermeneutics are in place and then cultural pressure kicks in. Stay the course and keep in touch!

Someone else wrote, “Was it ever in dispute they wouldn’t cast out those three churches or just another issue to drum up controversy over? I think they bring this issue up every couple of years as a distraction. The seminaries (SWBTS especially) aren’t doing well financially. CP giving is down. There’s a major sexual abuse scandal… etc. The issue of women pastors is something the majority of southern baptists agree on as evidenced by BFM 2000 and the results of the vote. This was a distraction only.”

My reply: Thanks for weighing in. Saddleback put the convention in a difficult spot and the SBC was forced to respond. Discussion on the floor both last year and this year proved that even though the BFM is quite clear, there is not complete consensus on the issue. Many churches sacrificially sent messengers to this year’s convention to try and help reaffirm the BFM. It seems there is nothing new under the sun and we must revisit the same issue every few years!

This conversation was a year ago now, but many of the questions and issues are the same. May God give wisdom to the messengers as they convene next week in Indianapolis.

Next week, Southern Baptists will gather in Indianapolis for their Annual Meeting and will discuss a variety of issues, including the role of women in ministry. Something called the “Law Amendment” has been proposed, which would add an additional condition to Article III of the SBC Constitution stating that cooperating churches will affirm, appoint, or employ “only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”

On May 22, Dr. Jeff Iorg, the new president of the SBC Executive Committee, wrote a thought-provoking article opposing this amendment. I’m grateful for Dr. Iorg’s leadership and count him a personal mentor and friend. However, on this particular issue, I would respectfully disagree. I’ve tried to summarize and respond to a few of his points…

1. It is a non-moral issue. Dr. Iorg says in his article, “Previous issues (homosexuality, sexual abuse and racism) have a defined moral component…Women serving in pastoral roles are not in this category.” In response, I would say that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7 deal with sexual identity, conduct in the worship service, and qualifications of church leadership. Are we really prepared to say that these and other such passages aren’t moral issues?

2. It is a distracting issue. Dr. Iorg says, “We must celebrate our diversity rather than striving for conformity, while doubling down on what the SBC came together to do in the first place – getting the Gospel to people who have never heard it….Let’s focus our energy on external threats instead of internal battles.” I love Dr. Iog’s heart for the Great Commission and have watched him for many years stay faithful to the spread of the gospel. The SBC has always existed to advance the Great Commission. But we are also a confessional people. If women in ministry didn’t matter to our founders and to our institutions, then it wouldn’t have been etched into our charter documents and the Baptist Faith & Message in the first place. But it is there because we do believe, to some degree, in the importance of narrowing our level of cooperation. I believe that churches who cooperate with doctrinal and ecclesiastical purity will be a brighter light, not a weaker one, before a watching world. Let us also remember that the Great Commission is not only sharing the gospel, but teaching Christ’s disciples to observe all he has commanded – included his teachings on gender, sexuality, and male/female roles in the home and in the church.

3. It is a consequential issue. Dr. Iorg writes, “When a church is removed from the SBC…there are several striking consequences…Some of the losses mentioned above have legal implications.” I appreciate these thoughts and think Dr. Iorg is uniquely positioned to help the SBC navigate through these changes. It grieves me what trickle down effect the Law Amendment could have on our entities. But I don’t think this is a reason to vote against it. The stakes are high. But that shouldn’t prevent us from doing the right thing. Maybe in some cases, churches will count the cost and consider ahead of time whether they really want to be using the title “pastor” for women. Their first motivation should be to honor Christ and be faithful to his word. But some of these other consequences are worth weighing.

4. It is an unsustainable change. Dr. Iorg writes, “If the issue is function, then the SBC Credentials Committee must investigate job descriptions, church governing documents, etc….This is unsustainable due to the number of churches to be evaluated.” If I’m not mistaken, this is one of the very reasons for passing the Law Amendment – to prevent endless wrangling, parsing of words, committee reviews, and emotionally charged debate on the convention floor. My hope is that the Law Amendment would reaffirm what is already stated in the Baptist Faith and Message (It’s not actually saying anything new). I believe it would be a helpful and timely re-affirmation of our doctrinal convictions. The messengers are still the ones who bring churches before the convention if there is a need to unseat any messengers.

As I see it, with the Law Amendment, the process would be tightened and clarified, and in a short amount of time, precedents will be set and we could continue on with the business of taking the gospel to our neighbors and the nations. May God’s will be done!