In our day of competing ideologies, battles over anthropology—the study of humanity as male and female—rage hot within and without the church. As Doug Ponder writes, “Unless the trajectory of the last few decades is suddenly and unexpectedly altered, the doctrine of anthropology will likely remain a key battleground of our time. Indeed, this area of doctrine is the source of many disputes which have only grown in both prevalence and intensity since the mid-twentieth century.”[1]
1. Douglas Brent Ponder, “Male and Female He Created Them: The Implications of a Paradigmatic Reading of Genesis 1–3 for the Complementarian-Egalitarian Debate,” (DMin thesis, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2024), 1.
I believe this is correct. The cultural confusion over gender is staggering. Our politicians are unable to define a woman. At a mind-numbing rate, men are identifying as women and are therefore allowed to participate in (and dominate!) women’s sports. At the highest levels of government, mentally unstable men (thinking they are women) are given unimaginable influence and power. And despite the efforts of many sane individuals, doctors continue to mutilate our children, performing life-changing surgeries, simply because we’re afraid to tell a boy he is not a girl and a girl she is not a boy. When it comes to anthropology, the mood of Judges rules the day: everyone does what is right in their own eyes—regardless of the age of those eyes.
Sadly, the battle over anthropology is not limited to the broader culture; when it comes to the church, the confusion does not subside. Right now, how men and women relate in local churches is hotly debated. Should women preach? Is it biblically faithful for women to serve as pastors of any sort (e.g., senior pastor, children’s pastor)? Is it true to say that women can do anything an unordained man can do? Do such debates about what women can do undermine the gift that women are to the Christian church? Within my current church affiliation, this question is of particular importance. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has been debating this topic for the last couple of years.
The Battle Over the Law Amendment
Last year at the SBC annual meeting, the convention passed the Law Amendment. If this amendment offered by pastor Mike Law is ratified at the 2024 convention, Article 3, Paragraph 1 of SBC constitution will read:
“a church [is] in friendly cooperation with the Convention … which … 6. Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”
This amendment has polarized the convention. At least that is the way it seems on social media. Some think the Law Amendment is necessary and are excited to vote for it at the June meeting in Indianapolis. There are others who, though they agree that the Bible only allows qualified men as pastors, think that passing such an amendment would fundamentally change how we cooperate. They see the amendment as unnecessarily removing churches that we should retain, and they fear this type of move would lead to more worrisome developments in the future. Still, some within the convention believe women preaching in our churches and holding the title of pastor (even the office), is perfectly faithful. That is, they are egalitarians who have simply lived at peace with a complementarian confession of faith at the convention level. Finally, others agree with the content of the amendment. They may not believe we need the amendment in order to hold churches accountable but will likely vote for it anyway.
Whether or not the convention is evenly split across all these positions is beyond me. I simply know the above views are out there. Last year, the Law Amendment passed easily, so all the online chatter may be nothing other than several loud voices making hay about nothing. The amount of division will be evident once this comes to a vote, if it ever does (some believe that stall tactics like endless amendments to the amendment will keep us from voting on it at all).
My Concern: Not Flinching in the Egalitarian Moment
With all that background, there’s a concern that has been stuck in my mind for some time. That is, some opponents of the Law Amendment have failed to sufficiently grapple with the cultural moment we are in. We are, as I mentioned above, in a moment of anthropological chaos. And the anthropological position that is rising to the fore, at least in the realm of theology, is clearly egalitarian. To state it another way, the feminist impulse seems to have the upper hand.
This upper hand is starting to claw its way into our churches, too. The prevalence of females holding pastoral positions within the SBC is alarming. Churches that welcome female preachers seem to increase weekly. And, even when churches violate the BF&M by allowing women to be pastors, the convention must take time to debate the definition of “pastor” and, at least in one case, delay action for over a year.
Given the moment we are living in, it seems the need to speak clearly, loudly, and with conviction is needed. It is no time to back down or waver. Right now, the battle on the ground and up for a vote is a battle surrounding biblical manhood and womanhood. This is not about preserving power for old white men but is a battle that concerns holding forth God’s good designs for men, women, and the structure of his blood-bought bride.
Doug Ponder, a professor at Grimke Seminary, shows how Genesis 1–3 is paradigmatic when it comes to men and women and is relevant for the egalitarian and complementarian debates (I hope he publishes that work!). In his introduction, Ponder quotes Elizabeth Charles:
It is the truth which is assailed in any age which tests our fidelity…If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field [sic] besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.[2]
2. Ponder, “Male and Female He Created Them,” 2.
To lean into Charles (via Ponder), the devil, the culture, and even some within the church are at the moment attacking the area of anthropology. We cannot remain silent as these battles rage. Faithfulness to Christ demands that we must stand firm. Let’s speak clearly. Let’s speak with a biblical voice. Let us not flinch.
The Law Amendment is How We Don’t Flinch
Some may say that we’ve already shown our willingness to remain steadfast. After all, the SBC unseated the messengers from more than one church over the issue of female pastors in 2023. That included disfellowshipping one of the most prominent and largest churches in the convention, Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church. This year, other churches are being brought forward for the convention to consider removing. So, why the amendment if we’ve already demonstrated our unwillingness to flinch?
First, there is a lack of clarity. There is ongoing debate about whether or not having a female pastor of any sort violates the Baptist Faith & Message. Some, like SBC pastor Dwight McKissic, argue that the Baptist Faith & Message only intended to restrict the senior pastorate to men. Women holding any other pastoral office, and even preaching regularly, is perfectly acceptable and within the bounds for the confession (and biblically warranted, according to McKissic!).
Second, when the time has come to discuss the removal of churches due to having female pastors, the credentials committee has displayed confusion. What did the word “pastor” mean? The online sparring over whether “pastor” in the Baptist Faith & Message refers only to the “senior pastor” or to more has been discussed ad nauseam. Such confusion has significantly increased the time it has taken to remove churches with female pastors. Fern Creek, one of the churches removed from the convention last year, had a female pastor for thirty years. It took years for the SBC to even bring that church up for a vote. Other churches in the convention currently have female pastors. How might we make it clear that such doctrine and practice is not welcome in our ranks? One of the ways is to pass the Law Amendment and allow churches, in an act of integrity, to step away themselves. Once we have added clarity to the Baptist Faith & Message via the Law Amendment in the Constitution, churches who are not willing to order themselves rightly will likely start to self-exit. This would lead to less floor debate over particular churches and likely fewer arguments among our body.
Third, we’ve clarified important things before. We made amendments about sexual abuse. We’ve clarified our position on sexuality. We should do so when it comes to the roles of men and women in the church. One of the reasons this is important is because manhood/womanhood is rooted in divine design. Living in harmony with God’s intentions leads to human flourishing. Therefore, though this is a second-tier doctrine, it is of the utmost importance.[3] If we love our God and love our neighbor, we will point everyone to how he has ordered the world and call them to live in accordance with these divine designs.
3. Theological triage, however, is not fully sufficient tool for determining the boundaries of cooperation in ministry. For a complementary category to triage, see David Attebury’s article “The Perils of Procrustean Triage: Redefining the Debate on Women’s Ordination.” Also, Joe Rigney has written helpfully on triage in the trenches of ministry, identifying when it is necessary to divide over secondary matters. See Joe Rigney, “Triage in the Trenches: When Do Second-tier Issues Divide?”
Fourth, there is no strong reason not to pass an amendment that simply asserts what the Bible asserts. Some argue that passing the amendment opens us up to multiple amendments to the SBC constitution in the future. Or, some say this will be weaponized against churches. Or, others are worried that this will remove churches that have mere semantic errors. But do those concerns tip the scale? Are those concerns weightier than God’s design for men and women in his church? Are we really more concerned with amending a living document than we are strengthening our doctrinal commitments at a time when the culture rages at precisely this point? Do we serve churches best by leaving things as they are and allowing them to flounder in semantic laziness? Might this be weaponized? How so? That’s a guess. What’s not a guess is how prevalent the egalitarian impulse is within our culture and Christian circles, including the SBC.
What Happens if we Flinch?
On the whole, I believe that if we fail to pass the amendment, the battle over the roles of men and women in the church will not end in defeat. Thousands of Southern Baptist churches have demonstrated their unwavering commitment to uphold all that the Bible teaches, and we will prayerfully redouble our efforts to bring our Convention into alignment with Scripture.
However, failure to pass this amendment will look like we have capitulated to the culture. We will, even if unintentionally, fuel the fires of an emerging (emergent) wave of feminism within the church. Egalitarianism gets a boon! Or, designs contrary to God’s creational order are propped up. In addition, we will at least stumble in our efforts to love fellow brothers and sisters. We may have the best intentions, but failing to speak clearly and loudly at this point via the Law Amendment will leave too many churches in sin and confusion.
In short, I believe that failing to pass this amendment is the very definition of flinching. I am praying we don’t flinch. For the good of the churches, the flourishing of men and women, and the glory of Christ.
