Every day I will bless you and praise your name forever and ever.
Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable.
Psalm 145:2–3
On Tuesday night, in preparation for the vote for the Law Amendment, I gathered with a handful of friends to sing praises to our great God. (You can see the video of the night before here). And on that night, I read these words from Psalm 145. With great hope, we anticipated and prayed for the passage of the Law Amendment.
Yet, to borrow the language of Proverbs 13:12, those hopes would be “made sick” as constitutional reform was deferred. When the Law Amendment received 61% of the vote instead of the two-thirds supermajority required for ratification, we at Christ Over All were understandably disappointed. But as Mike Law put it in his own statement, we are “not disheartened.” Nor are we giving up on the need for reform in the Southern Baptist Convention and beyond.
If anything, we are energized by a number of events from the proceedings of the SBC. While reform is needed, there is good reason for seeing the possibility and promise of that reform. Yet because such hope may be missed, especially by those who were not in Indianapolis, I want to offer a few reflections as we at Christ Over All encourage others to pray and plan for ways to see ongoing reform in the SBC, or wherever the Lord sovereignly places them. For in truth, in our modern, secular, and post-Christian America, we are at a low tide for evangelical health. And in all places there is need for evangelical work, not to mention wide-scale repentance. And so, in what follows, I want to offer six reflections on why we believe laboring in the SBC is still a good work.
The Good, the Bad, and the Inevitability of the SBC: Six Reflections
First, don’t believe everything you hear on the news.
This should be axiomatic by now. But it needs to be said again . . . and again. Those who hate Christ love to mislead Christ’s people, and as Joe Rigney has observed, when Christ’s people are deceived, they are used to steer others away from sober-mindedness and biblical fidelity.
Speaking especially to those who have reached out to us concerned by what the AP and other secular media have reported, take a deep breath, count to ten, pray, and remember: Christ is over the Law Amendment and the SBC. Then, call a friend who was in Indianapolis and ask them what they saw. Or take ten minutes to listen to what follows here. In whatever you are inclined to do about partnering for the sake of the gospel, make good and wise decisions, not hasty and emotional ones.
From our vantage point, there are many frustrating and unfaithful elements to consider from this year’s convention. The critical spirit of the new Executive Committee president, the failed ratification of the Law Amendment, and a consistent unwillingness for financial transparency are three examples of discouragement. But on the other hand, the election of Clint Pressley will mean a platform that is hospitable to promoting and appointing biblical complementarians. And there is rising a conservative (and largely Reformed) coalition in the SBC to call for reform.
Second, the SBC is learning to stand for truth (again).
For the second year in a row, more than 90% of the messengers voted to remove a church for brazenly defending an unbiblical position of having a female senior pastor. This was based on our Confession, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM2000), which has not changed despite the failure of the Law Amendment, and which is unmistakably complementarian. To be clear, the Credentials Committee still needs direction for evaluating churches, especially given the diverse use of “pastor” in many of our churches. And I suspect that in the next year, they will get plenty of practice, based on the precedent of the last two years of removing egalitarian churches from cooperation with the SBC.
Yet, despite our complementarian confession, there is a problem since the number of churches in the SBC with female pastors is outlandish and not consistent with the BFM2000. The number is more than 1,800, and I have heard from dozens of messengers that in order to spur the convention to love and good works, they plan to take steps to challenge churches to uphold the Bible, to change nomenclature (away from female “pastors”), and to bring other churches to account.
To the world and those ensnared in its progressive gaze, this will seem harsh. But to those who love God’s Word and trust his ways, this accountability will purify the convention, strengthen our unity, and demonstrate a consistent application of the BF&M2000. While the Law Amendment would have provided more care and precision for this reformation, the Confession remains the same and the tools for reform are there as long as we continue to stand for what is biblical, right, and good.
Fidelity to God’s Word requires constant vigilance. And churches love one another when we hold each other to the standard of God’s Word. That’s something Mike Law modeled and motivated for the last two years. And that is not going away. In fact, the results in Indianapolis will only increase this pursuit.
Third, the SBC is complementarian in form, but inconsistent in practice.
If anyone leaves Indianapolis thinking that the SBC is egalitarian, they are mistaken. The majority of messengers voted in favor of the Law Amendment, and over 90% of them removed an egalitarian church from cooperation with the SBC. Likewise, two candidates who opposed the Law Amendment did not make it past the first round of voting in the presidential election. And even those like Kevin Ezell, who opposed the Law Amendment, were forced to defend the policies of NAMB to refuse cooperation with the Baptist General Convention of Texas because this state convention still holds to the Baptist Faith and Message (1963), which does not restrict the office of pastor/elder/overseer to qualified men.
So in principle and on paper, the SBC is complementarian. The problem is that complementarianism is not equally and consistently held across the convention or the platform. For instance, on the Cooperative Committee (that concluded at this year’s convention) were two men who lead churches with female pastors. The Law Amendment gave clarity that pastors “of any kind” should be qualified men. This view is most biblical and most effective for producing healthy churches. Yet, that commitment is not universally understood or affirmed in the SBC, largely due to how closely churches follow the biblical language of pastor/elder and how they understand the relationship between pastors/elders and deacons. And that is where the battle will continue. But it continues on a firm commitment to Scripture and a statement of faith that affirms Scripture’s teaching on the office of pastor.
Fourth, the SBC is not unregenerate but needs reform.
While secular media has claimed a victory for the defeat of the Law Amendment, there are others who have written “Ichabod” over the SBC. And to be fair, I can appreciate some of the concerns. The revelations brought to light at the luncheon held by the Center for Baptist Leadership include SBC entity heads taking large sums of money from Leftist organizations who have targeted the SBC for political purposes. Ironically, for all the ways that Jeff Iorg scolded the messengers for caring about political matters, there are leaders in the SBC who have failed to guard the convention from outside agitators and have instead received politically-motivated gifts for Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) initiatives, to name but one example.
These revelations were brought forward by Megan Basham, and will be detailed in her forthcoming book. Later this summer, we will interview her regarding Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda, but for now we can say that the receipts for her claims will require SBC messengers in Dallas to evaluate multiple entity leaders and their conduct with large contributions coming from organizations devoted to political ends.
For this reason and others, many have claimed that staying in the SBC is unfaithful. Yet, is it? Is it unfaithful to stay in a church or a convention, where change can be had? If you are a member of a local church and the well-established pastor is committed to doctrinal error with no promise of repentance, then it would be unfaithful to stay. But if you are the pastor of that church and you preach the life-giving Word of God, then preach with all your might and pray for God to work. It is not unfaithful to serve a church filled with doctrinal error if you are one of the members bringing biblical truth. This is how God purifies the church.
Similarly, if you are in a denomination where the platform has all the power and cannot be unseated, and if bishops, presbyteries, or other hierarchical structures make grass-roots reform impossible, then when doctrinal error arises, go find another denomination. However, if you are in the SBC, that is not the case. The structures of the SBC, as convoluted as they are, have a built-in immune system, where faithful pastors can lead messengers to vote out bad leaders and appoint new committee members, trustees, and entity heads.
Is this a headache? Yes.
Does it take a long time? Yes.
Is it worth it? Yes.
This is effectively what happened in the Conservative Resurgence, which provided a generation of pastors and churches a biblical foundation on which to build doctrine. And it can happen again. Unfortunately, as we are discovering, such building has often foundered. For while 9Marks and Founders brought sound doctrine and healthy ecclesiology to the SBC, others continued to pursue pragmatic and seeker-sensitive approaches. Add in the progressive agitators, and you have our current convention. Despite the presence and placement of many leaders committed to pragmatic ministries, the convention is filled with regenerate people who need ongoing reform. For that reason, it is reasonable to stay and fight.
Today, there remain many faithful voices in the SBC. Those voices are speaking up and many are joining them. In Indianapolis, in many fresh ways, I saw this very thing. What we need is more men like Abraham to stand up and intercede, not fewer. The SBC has not succumbed to liberalism, but it lives among a people and nation that continues to mock God and invite his judgment. For the sake of local churches, we need the SBC to be as healthy as it can be. But that requires internal correction, repentance, and reform.
Such reform begins with our need to repent of our pragmatism, pride, and fear to apply the whole counsel of God to every area of our lives. For example, the lack of transparency regarding finances, the large sums of progressive money coming into the convention, and the smugness of entity leaders who maintain that they know better than the messengers are just some of the ways reform is desperately needed. Indeed, this reform is not simply stylistic or bureaucratic; it is spiritual and thus transformative. We need hearts lacerated by God’s Word and spines strengthened by God’s Spirit, and we need bold voices who will lead this charge.
Fifth, the SBC needs faithful pastors, churches, and messengers.
Whenever one works hard at reformation and then loses the desired end, there is a natural inclination to doubt the effort or abandon the work. With the Law Amendment, there were dozens if not hundreds of people laboring to see this constitutional revision pass, not to mention the thousands who voted for it. And yet, it didn’t pass. And because it fell short, the temptation to leave the SBC is a real threat—or a real need, depending on whom you ask.
Despite the well-intentioned invitations by many friends to leave the SBC, I am not convinced that departing is the only faithful option. In fact, I am more convinced than ever that we need to fight for the convention while there remains a strong number of conservatives in the convention. In fact, the providential result of the Law Amendment may be the formation of a conservative coalition that aims to expose the darkness and remove the rot.
As it stands, the Bible remains the authority of the SBC, if only we will believe and obey what it says. So much rot at the heart of the convention is related to church practices that answer the question “Will It Work?” instead of the question, “Is it Right and True?” Pragmatism has long been a besetting sin in the SBC, and underneath it, if we are not careful, is not the fear of God but the desire to please men. But it does not have to be that way and many are calling for greater confessional fidelity and doctrinal unity. Indeed, Christ Over All spent the whole month of March making that point, and the Law Amendment itself catalyzed a convention-wide discussion about confessional cooperation. In my mind, the Law Amendment was not the end of a movement, but its beginning.
For the last two years, Mike Law has appealed to the Bible with relentless joy to confront the errors of the SBC. And I believe that his effort, as well the efforts of many others in the convention, has achieved a groundswell of support among those who are wholly committed to applying Scripture to every area of life. Admittedly, some of these young men may have rough edges as they bring their motions, resolutions, and objections to the platform. And this has made some hesitant to partner. But rough skinned or smooth, God in his kindness has raised up an army of Gideons who will tear down the idols of pragmatism and uphold biblical truth. Let us not miss what he is doing.
Among all the things that happened in Indianapolis, this is the one I’m most encouraged by.
I can’t share with you all the conversations, text messages, email chains, and strategic meetings that I have been a part of, but there is a movement afoot to reclaim the SBC from the stranglehold of pragmatism and to set it afresh on biblical foundations. Indeed, there are many who are working to improve the SBC and in the days and years to come, I truly believe the health of the SBC will improve . . . if only SBC pastors remain—and get to work!
It is true that the failure of the Law Amendment, which we at Christ Over All commended for two years, is a low note. But it is only one note. It is not the whole chorus. Instead, if we really believe our theology, it is but a part of God’s symphony. And I, for one, am convinced there are many high notes for the SBC to come. And that is why I am urging my fellow pastors to stay the course, proclaim the unfathomable riches of Christ and the gospel, and labor with all of their might for the life and health of the church, including the SBC (Col. 1:28-29).
For the alternative is that the largest denomination in America loses solid, conservative leaders and lists Leftward just like the progressives want. And this brings me to the last point. You can leave the SBC, but the SBC won’t be leaving you.
Sixth, the SBC isn’t going away and it will impact everyone.
Today, there are upwards of 50 thousand churches and 13 million members. Even if those numbers are bloated—and that’s another point of reformation—they represent the largest ship in the harbor. And among all the others boats, the presence of the SBC has an oversized impact on other churches. Indeed, as the SBC goes, so goes much of the evangelical world in America. The progressives know this. And we should too.
Even if the SBC is most dense in the South, its churches and church plants crisscross the nation and the globe. And thus, if we care about our neighbors, our extended families, our nation, and the nations, we have to care about the SBC. It’s very easy for a church to leave the SBC cooperatively, but it is very difficult to leave it culturally. And for this reason, it is best in my estimation to stay and fight for this denomination, instead of giving it up for a place of greater ministerial purity.
Or, perhaps, to cite that famous meme: Why not both!!
It is possible to align with tightly knit ministry networks (Founders, G3, 9Marks, Abolitionists Rising, CBMW, etc.) and to be SBC. Because of the way cooperation works, these two things—(1) a tight doctrinal association and (2) a broader SBC association—are not mutually exclusive. While every church will have to parse this out, they do not need to choose one over the other. Even more, we need churches that put doctrine first to stay in the SBC.
Here’s why. Like it or not, the SBC, being as large as it is, has an impact on every church in America, including yours. When it comes to missions, evangelism, theological education, and cultural impact, the SBC influences churches far beyond its borders. Therefore, if the SBC goes Left, liberal, or woke, it endangers everyone—your neighbors, nephews, and everyone else in the nation. You can leave the SBC, but its scope will reach into your church, especially as members come from or go to other SBC churches. Therefore we need churches to fight.
At the same time, those doctrinally sound churches need to know that staying to fight does not need to corrupt them. Indeed, if a church fears the doctrinal drift of the SBC will harm it, it should remember that the SBC doesn’t have authority over a local church. The convention may unseat messengers from a church whose faith and practice fall outside the BFM2000, but it cannot force anything on a local church.
Therefore, for churches who lament aspects of the SBC, I would urge you to be a church that brings biblical motions, resolutions, and actions to the convention, even if you don’t get anything from the convention right now. As Jesus said, it is more blessed to give than receive (Acts 20:35). And in truth, the SBC needs churches who are committed to giving theological truth.
Getting Strategic about Reforming the SBC
Let me close with this. During the SBC, David Shannon (aka Chocolate Knox) wrote up a synopsis of Gary North’s book, Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church. And in that thread, he highlighted the fact that the Liberals of the nineteenth century had a long-range goal of taking captive the Presbyterian church in America and that they put their money where the mouth was. In the SBC, we must do the same.
We must think strategically about the finances of the SBC and reward those who are faithful to God’s Word, while calling to account financial indiscretions, like those reported by Megan Basham at this year’s SBC. This is but one of the ways that SBC messengers can get strategic.
The other is for SBC pastors to speak up and to express their biblical convictions. In Indianapolis, there were dozens of pastors who were willing to speak. And many more who have walked away from Indianapolis energized to do the same. At Christ Over All, we are a ministry of writing and podcasting; we produce evergreen content to equip the church to engage the culture. In this way, we are delighted to serve the broader church, but as Baptists who have been most closely aligned with the SBC, we feel a special burden for that convention.
In so many ways, the SBC is our family. And for reasons of loyalty and possibility, we are committed to helping bring reform in this convention and in local associations related to the SBC. Indeed, as we write articles and essays that shape the mind, we are ever aware of the need to make concrete applications in the local church. And practically, this means contributing to a reform of doctrine and morals in the SBC.
Historically, this was the same burden that William Wilberforce had in England, when he served in Parliament to end the slave trade. While he labored for decades, seeing only limited or even negative results, he pressed on until the slave trade was abolished. Along the way, whenever he encountered a setback, it did not stop his efforts. For him, the opposition was absorbed, and by God’s grace, returned with greater force. As John Piper records it, from the vantage point of his opponents, “It is necessary to watch him [Wilberforce] as he is blessed with a very sufficient quantity of that Enthusiastic spirit, which is so far from yielding that it grows more vigorous from blows.”[1]
1. John Piper, Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006), 47.
Indeed, as a friend of Mike Law, I have seen this kind of enthusiastic spirit. And in the men who joined with him in Indianapolis I have seen the same. As the blows have come, they have by God’s grace become more vigorous, not less. So as I close, I am offering this vision to you, that the blows taken this week may produce a similar vigorous spirit.
In Indianapolis, we did not get what we had hoped for and worked toward—the passage of the Law Amendment. And more, we saw again a number of cancerous sores in the body of the SBC. But at the same time, we have seen a rising tide of pastors who want to fight for the truth and to push it into every corner of the SBC. And, if the Lord has put you in this convention and you share these same burdens, we are asking you not to leave and to give up, but to labor on.
In our short time on the earth, we cannot accomplish all things. Nor can we freely choose the utopian place of service, fellowship, or cooperation. Often times, we find ourselves in families, neighborhoods, jobs, nations, churches, and conventions that are less than ideal. And in God’s good timing, he might lead us out of those circumstances. But he might also lead us to stay.
And, for the reasons listed above, those at Christ Over All are persuaded that staying and fighting the good fight of faith is the way to go. For some of our good friends, who chastise remaining in the crumbling city, we have heard your invitations to leave. But we do not believe the Lord is done with our service here. As long as this city remains, our place on the walls, and therefore we labor. And we urge you to join us!