Southern Baptists could take the debate over women pastors to a new dimension as the nation’s largest Protestant denomination holds its annual meeting June 11-12 in Indianapolis.
Local church representatives, or messengers, will be asked to vote a second time to amend the Southern Baptist Convention’s constitution to state that one way a church is considered to be in “friendly cooperation” is if it “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”
At last year’s annual SBC gathering, messengers affirmed a decision to no longer affiliate with the well-known Saddleback Church, founded by Rick Warren, due to its women pastors on staff and a Kentucky church led by a woman.
But organizations and individuals are divided on the amendment, with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on one side and Baptist Women in Ministry on the other. Three of the six candidates expected to be nominated for the SBC presidency favor the so-called “Law Amendment” to ban women pastors and three do not.
Pastor Mike Law of Arlington, Virginia, said at last year’s meeting that he introduced the amendment because he was seeking clarity through the measure: “When an unbeliever looks for a Southern Baptist church in my area, we want them to find a church that holds the Bible’s teachings and our convention’s beliefs.”
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Ghosted: An American Story” by Nancy French. To donate, click here.
The amendment passed overwhelmingly last year, but it must get a second vote of at least two-thirds of the messengers at the upcoming meeting, with 10,500 preregistered as of Thursday (June 6), for it to become a part of the constitution.
“If it were to fail, this would LIKELY be the first time that has happened,” Jonathan Howe, vice president for communications of the SBC Executive Committee, told Religion News Service about the lack of a precedent for a second vote overturning the outcome of the first.
Some churches made the decision to leave before they might be asked.
The Rev. Christy McMillin-Goodwin, pastor of First Baptist Church in Front Royal, Virginia, said she was surprised to discover that another Virginia clergyperson had listed her church as an example of one whose clerical leader was “sinning against God.”
“Our church decided to take a vote last May (2023) and the decision was unanimous,” she said of the church that had long stopped sending donations to the SBC and is affiliated with the more moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. “People actually yelled ‘Yes.’ It was very impassioned that we don’t want to be a part of an organization that does not fully support women in leadership in the church.”
A third Virginia pastor, Robert Stephens, is planning to speak against the amendment. His First Baptist Church of Alexandria announced on its website that it learned from the SBC’s Credentials Committee that it is the subject of a “formal inquiry.” The church, which has a woman serving as pastor for children and women, also said it has been informed that a request could be made to “unseat” its messengers, which could prevent any of them from addressing attendees at the annual meeting.
“First Baptist Church of Alexandria believes that while the scriptural record around women in ministry is complex and sometimes difficult to interpret, there is plenty of reason within the Bible to affirm women serving in pastoral roles,” the church told the committee in response to its questions.
Across the country, African American clergy within the denomination have been some of the most vocal opponents of the amendment.
“I am cautiously optimistic that our Southern Baptist messengers will choose to honor the autonomy of the local churches and not seek to delve into the operational mechanics of the church,” said Pastor Gregory Perkins, president of the National African American Fellowship of the SBC.
He said many of the 3,800 churches in his fellowship believe the senior pastorate is reserved for men but that women can hold other roles, such as Pastor Regina Bennett, who oversees women’s and children’s ministries and sometimes preaches to his predominantly Black congregation, The View Church in Menifee, California.
“I believe that God called men and women to preach and to teach,” said Bennett, citing 2 Timothy’s reference that says to “show thyself approved.” “And so I think it would be sad if they decided to do that to reduce the diversity, but also being able to hear from both men and women, as the Bible tells us.”
Opponents to women in pastoral roles, including Law, cite verses in the previous New Testament book, 1 Timothy, as justification for excluding women pastors. Its verse, “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet” is already cited in the Baptist Faith and Message, the SBC confessional statement, but proponents of the Law Amendment do not think it is sufficient for the denomination’s stance on the issue.
“At a time when many churches within the SBC operate in contradiction to the BFM by ordaining females to the pastorate (lead, co-pastor, associate or otherwise), confessional clarity is necessary,” wrote Jonathan Swan, managing editor of CBMW’s Eikon Journal in a spring article. “One could go so far as to say that in moments like these, it is the spiritual duty of Southern Baptists not to just say what they believe, but to be doers of what they believe.”
Other leaders say the Law Amendment is not necessary and could lead to an array of consequences that could damage the convention and its affiliates.
In a first-person article in Baptist Press, the official news service of the SBC, Jeff Iorg, the new president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee, said the amendment could lead to potential litigation, loss of board members on SBC agencies if they are affiliated with an expelled church, and overwork of a volunteer Credentials Committee to investigate churches that may violate the words in the amendment.
“Despite the fact the proposed amendment reflects my beliefs and practices, my concerns about the following implications and consequences of its adoption lead me to oppose it,” he wrote in May.
Pastor Dwight McKissic, a Texas pastor who has criticized the SBC for not having more African American leaders in executive positions and successfully pushed messengers at past annual meetings to pass resolutions condemning white supremacy and criticizing the Confederate flag, said in an interview that passage of the Law Amendment would prompt him to no longer be affiliated with the SBC.
“The Law Amendment attacks personhood and it devalues women, and it takes away a local church’s decision to determine the role of women within that particular congregation and what title they might hold,” said McKissic, who has women with the title of “minister” on staff at his predominantly Black church. “In a way, I think no national organization should attempt to play such a role in the life of a local church.”
Perkins said he expects other African American churches, some of which, like McKissic’s, are affiliated with historic Black denominations, to possibly leave.
The Rev. Meredith Stone, executive director of Baptist Women in Ministry, said a wide array of other churches are also mulling what they might do next if the amendment gets a second affirmative vote.
“The Law amendment will put it back on the churches,” she said, “some of those churches that are waiting to see what happens for them to decide: Are we going to stand firm and make them kick us out? Are we going to change titles? Or are we going to just go ahead and disfellowship ourselves from the convention preemptively?”
Adelle Banks is production editor and a national correspondent at Religion News Service.
English 
Spanish
15 Responses
Men have been responsible for the state of the church today, dragging it into the mire and causing more confusion and disasters than not. Women have not been in sufficient numbers to have caused the sorry state of affairs we see in the church today. That falls solely at the feet of the men who have been our “leaders”. This is the truth.
Until they decide to protect and support women and children who have been abused, and compensate those who have been abused & gaslighted in the past – what kind of spiritual integrity do they have to voce on anything? If they are not willing to intentionally protect their women and children, then hypocrisy is driving their decisions – like all the ‘smoke & mirrors’ from the committee that has spent time talking about doing something to protect and compensate abuse victims, while actually doing nothing to compensate them, or even create a list of abusive pastors etc. – for fear of financial repercussions… And then the mission becomes the salvation of the ‘system’ – even though they end up hurting the reputation of the church, their own reputations and the finances because of the lawsuits. It makes a mockery of God’s love for His children – and either they do not see it, or once again, they see it and willfully refuse to focus on God’s priority.
If they ain’t from Africa then they ain’t African. I am of Polish descent but I don’t call myself Polish American. And I don’t see a Polish – American SBC church.
Mr. Whelly,
I’m pretty sure if you wanted to call yourself Polish-American no one would object. We all have roots in other countries. My heritage as Caucasian is too long to list.
Perhaps there wouldn’t be the need for certain designations if everyone had been welcomed on an equal basis from the beginning.
Interesting battle to pick, Tim.
1. Just as you can CHOOSE what to call yourself (Polish American, American, American of Polish descent, whatever works for you), others can do the same. And I’m pretty sure whatever they call themselves isn’t about you (and vice versa). It’s about personal choice and freedom. (You can call me Black; my choice)
2. The African-American church was established in an era where segregation legally prevented the races from worshipping together and/or kept Black Christians out of church leadership roles. The church has gone on to be the cornerstone of cultural, religious, and social movements throughout history – birthing civil rights leaders, refining gospel music, and more.
Left that important lesson out.
Now, back to the issue of women….
This is what happens when people build theology using isolated texts without considering historical, socio-cultural contexts and the whole counsel of scripture.
Paul’s addressed specific concerns that arose in that specific church: a disruptive chaos from unlearned women with various pagan doctrines. He did not state according to “Law of the LORD or commanded by Yeshua”. That’s why he said the word “I”. Today, Paul’s admonition will apply when the conditions of the original context which he addressed are met.
Moreover, the gifts of Ruach of YHVH are not exclusive to males. If a woman is gifted with teaching, she ought to use her gifts and teach/lead in the church. We are all called to “preach the good news” without regard to gender.
Males may be the natural order of creation to lead. HOWEVER, if men do not step up and perform satisfactorily (as is clearly evident today), HaShem will employ a woman to shepherd HIS flock. Was Deborah not a judge, and shepherd and prophetess in Israel?!. And so did Paul recognize several women ministers and leaders in his epistles.
Do not confuse fixed and immutable laws of the LORD vs. permissive will of the LORD. What I have learnt about YHVH is that generally, If issue is not a question of morality or ethical, consider the issue situational. Meaning, YHVH can work and change with the context of the times, people, culture etc. In other words: different times calls for different measures.
We live in different times; and today, women are learned, and capable. Hence, to YHVH, women leaders/pastors are permissible. And If no qualified man to shepherd and lead, the LORD will bypass men in a hot second and pick a qualified woman. TRUST! Better ask Deborah, the judge.
When Paul goes back to the beginning of Creation and then talks about the order of Creation as well as the marriage of man and women representing the Church, we can be assured that this issue is not only a “cultural” issue. In a lot of these hot button issues we see clear instructions and only mental gymnastics and fallacious thinking can come up with alternative interpretations. Women are just as smart with leadership qualities as men. That is not the issue. We can debate what “leadership” means but when the Scriptures go all the way back to Creation, we are to listen. I would rather people say that they do not believe Paul than twist Scripture to our cultural context. Also, if the SBC had had more input from women, I cannot imagine these sexual abuse scandals reaching such a feverous pitch.
Many of us recognize the Creation Accounts teach full equality of men and women, with no hierarchy of status or “roles,” and consider it “mental gymnastics and fallacious thinking” to believe Paul would use them in such a way.
We consider it similar “mental gymnastics and fallacious thinking” to claim that Nympha did not have responsible oversight for the church in her home, or that prostatis Phoebe was not in a leadership role, or that Junia was not a noted apostle, or that the wording of any of the “gifts” passages in Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12-14, and Eph. 4 excluded women from any of the gifts, including teacher, evangelist, pastor, prophet, apostle, leadership, or governing.
Well said, Seraphina! I don’t hear ANYONE questioning where the men are! In an era where women are outpacing men in church attendance and membership, our Lord will not be bound and will choose Godly women to carry on His word if necessary!
“I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet.”
If the SBC believes this, then they also must believe the verse a few lines down: “But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” (verse 15).
Clearly this verse goes against the SBC preaching about how to reach salvation. Only holy women who have children can thereby be saved? What about the countless nuns who gave up that option and lived holy lives?
And cherry-picking this verse contradicts Paul’s support for women leaders he mentions: Junia, Phoebe, Prisca/Priscilla, and more.
Then there is plenty of archaeological evidence for women leaders in churches.
Something else must be going on with this verse. One good translation is, “I do not permit a woman to teach that she is the AUTHOR of a man.” The few verses following this translation support it, as do etymological and cultural studies.
Heidi Bright, MDiv, author, “Hidden Voices: Biblical Women and Our Christian Heritage”
What about the women who went on the mission field, sometimes where men couldn’t go, the women did everything a man did .
You did it, you are solving the reason church attendance is dropping! Those darn women folk as pastors!
It is pretty obvious what the leadership of the SBC thinks of abuse based upon the empty, non-funded database, the stonewalling, cover-ups. And the icing on the cake is having a national political figure who is a convicted felon, adulterer, abuser, fraud, and unregenerate pagan as one of their keynote speakers. After all, if they are OK with “Break her down” Paige Patterson, then “Grab Em By” and Epstein buddy DJT as a speaker makes perfect sense. It is clear by now that the “Character Counts” memo in 1998 about a certain POTUS was just politics. Yet another perfect example of the hypocrisy that is the SBC, its leadership, its pastors, and its members.
Praying the SBC will continue to stand firm on God’s Word, not as liberal theologians twist it to affirm their own feminist/Marxist agenda, but as it is clearly written, and vote again to affirm the Law Amendment. My only sadness with the Law Amendment is that I’m not able to go (as I was in NO last year) to vote for it again myself.
Maybe it was Pharisee men who twisted it all along…