Jason Glas

Last week at the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) meeting in Indianapolis, on a few occasions, it felt like I was living through the lyrics of the song by the English punk rock band The Clash, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” In conversations with pastors and messengers at the SBC, the question I heard most often regarding their churches and affiliation with the convention was, “Should we stay or should we go?” It was a question of whether to stay in the SBC or leave the denomination entirely.

Why the Moral Quandary?

The controversy and urgency of the question was in response to the SBC’s failure to pass what became known as the ‘Law Amendment’ by 2/3’s vote. The vote to amend the SBC Constitution fell short by 5.21%. The Law Amendment sought to affirm The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (BF&M 2000) article VI, “The Church” which states in part:

“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.”

Unfortunately, it was discovered that many churches ‘cooperating’ with the SBC took that definition to be more elastic than intended, suggesting the clause be applied only to senior pastors and not all pastors. Others accused conservatives of exaggerating the claims of churches that had women serving in ‘pastoral’ roles, but Kevin McClure exposed the breadth of the problem in his analysis entitled “How Many Female Pastors Are In The SBC?” where he discovered approximately 1,844 female pastors serving in SBC churches. 

The Law Amendment was not proposing anything new but solidifying the consensus and intent of the BF&M 2000 that only men, as qualified by Scripture, can serve in any pastoral capacity in the local church. The ‘Law Amendment’ was not amending the BF&M 2000, but proposed to amend the SBC Constitution by adding subparagraph 6 to Article 3 ensuring the SBC cooperates only with churches that do not affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind. The proposed subparagraph amendment literally stated: “Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” If the amendment would have passed, then churches with female ‘pastors’ of any kind would not be deemed in friendly cooperation.

Leading up to the convention in Indianapolis last week, many efforts were made to inform Southern Baptists and encourage their vote to pass the Law Amendment and ensure the trajectory of the SBC remains on a path of Biblical fidelity. Pastor Mike Law of Arlington Baptist Church, who drafted the amendment, labored tirelessly ahead of the convention, and support for the amendment was affirmed by many Southern Baptist leaders as well. Prior to the SBC, Christ Over All released “Important Articles on Why the Law Amendment is Necessary” that showed support by conservative leaders and the amendment’s importance to preserve the theological integrity of the SBC. Even on Monday evening June 10th and Tuesday June 11th ahead of the vote, pastors and messengers gathered in downtown Indianapolis in a hotel courtyard worshipping together in singing hymns, praying, and reading Scripture encouraging Southern Baptists to “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3 ESV).

When the amendment failed to pass it was disheartening. Adding to the vote failure was the subterfuge of some persons, groups, and agencies politicking against the amendment, and of course, media outlets in general charging SBC conservatives with misogyny and preventing women from being able to serve in ministry.  Unfortunately, it showed the leftist influence in our SBC is stronger than many realized. At the Center for Baptist Leadership luncheon, Megan Basham delivered a mouth dropping 20-minute address on June 12th exposing leftist fundings to the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) and even some sympathetic ties to the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Her address leaves us on the edge of our seat for her forthcoming book in July “Shepherds for Sale” which will only further demonstrate the call to urgency.

Despite the noise from the cultural left, the Law Amendment was not about limiting women’s service to the local church, but to ensure churches that cooperate with the SBC only have Biblically qualified men serving in any office of pastor. It does not limit women from serving the church through other Biblically sanctioned means. When the amendment failed, the question emerged, “Should I stay or should I go?”

I respect the sentiment. The emotional frustration over what should be a nonnegotiable item for Southern Baptists put many pastors, on behalf of their churches, in a moral quandary over whether remaining in the SBC is a morally responsible decision. One that even Covenant Baptist Church faces as well.

Should We Stay or Should We Go?

While I am sympathetic to the question, I could not help but think about a similar time that Southern Baptists endured before, some four decades ago. Southern Baptists fought against leftward drift in the convention against those who attacked the inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture. By God’s abundant grace and through the perseverance of faithful Southern Baptists, Biblical faithfulness, theological orthodoxy, and doctrinal fidelity won the day. It forced the so-called “moderates” out of the SBC, leading them to form their own club, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which looks much like the United Methodist Church today. The success of that long and exhausting endeavor set the SBC on a trajectory of reviving historic Baptist theology, reforming our seminaries, and giving us the BF&M 2000 that further protected Southern Baptist positions on the Bible and the family.

We are faced with that battle once again. The question of who is qualified to be a pastor is not the real issue. The primary concern is what we believe about the Word of God. When faced with so many conflicting voices, tugs on emotional heartstrings, and accusations of limiting women to serve Jesus, it is easy to question our position in an age that follows emotions over facts, but as Joe Rigby rightly points out, this is a time to be sober-minded, steadfast, and hold firm to our convictions, not bend our will to the whims of emotions untethered from Biblical theology. David Schrock summarizes our response well in his essay after the SBC vote that I highly encourage you all to read.

The reality is, until the Lord Jesus Christ returns, the church will always be in the battle for truth because the church of the living God is the pillar and support of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). It is a battle worth fighting because it is Biblical and doctrinal truth we are fighting for.

The reality is, until the Lord Jesus Christ returns, the church will always be in the battle for truth

Southern Baptists are in familiar territory, and our prayer is that God, in His kindness, will help us fight the good fight of faith to prevail again. We should stay. Remaining in the SBC is the right thing to do. The SBC is the largest Protestant denomination, the Cooperative Program is an important vehicle for spreading the gospel message, planting churches, sending missionaries, training pastors through our seminaries, and rightly influencing public theology for the common good. No local church or denomination will ever escape the constant battle for truth. What we do know is the majority of Southern Baptists voted for the Law Amendment, and that is significant cause for hope that church delegates of the SBC will soon pass what is needed to preserve our heritage of Biblical and theological orthodoxy.

I encourage you all to pray for our church, pray for the SBC, and pray for our leaders to amend our constitution and efforts to ensure that those who identify as Southern Baptists are committed to Biblical truth and the flourishing of men and women in gospel ministry as defined and qualified according to sacred Scripture. With all that said, the elders of your church are committed that we should stay, and not go.

© J. Christopher Glas 2024