David L. Allen
May 2024
Southern Baptists will be voting a second time on an important amendment to our constitution (The Law-Sanchez Amendment) in Indianapolis in June. The proposed amendment would be added to the SBC constitution under Article 3, Paragraph 1 concerning “Composition.” For context, the amendment is listed in bold:
The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work which:
6. Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.
Why is such an amendment to the SBC constitution necessary? To answer this question, let’s begin with what Scripture says about the issue.
Biblical and Theological Aspects
The term “pastor” occurs in noun form in the New Testament 18 times and is used in reference to three groups of people: 1) Shepherds (6 times), 2) Jesus (11 times), local church pastors (1 time). This latter use occurs in Ephesians 4:11. The verb “to pastor” or “to shepherd” occurs 12 times in the New Testament in reference to three groups of people: 1) Shepherds (3 times), 2) Jesus (6 times), and pastor/elder (3 times).
A careful study of these terms with respect to the office/role of pastor reveals the following:
1. The mandate to fulfill the function of “pastoring” is given only to elders who are men (John 21:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2).
2. The term “pastor” is synonymous with the terms “elder” and “overseer.”
3. Each of these three terms designates a single office in the local church.
4. The verb “to pastor” is never used of any mandate given to all Christians.
5. The three terms designate one office in the local church and never only gifts given to some leaders.
6. The three terms always connote authority of leadership and teaching in the local church.
1 Timothy 3:1-7 includes biblical qualifications for those who serve in the office of pastor. These include being “the husband of one wife,” and “able to teach.” The pronouns used throughout are masculine. Nothing could be clearer.
Considering this, it should be obvious that for any church to employ the term “pastor” for any office, staff position or otherwise, that is filled by a woman is contrary to Scripture. I understand there are two categories of SBC churches that utilize the term “pastor” for ministerial staff positions other than pastor/elder, and who include women in some of these positions, including pastor/elder.
First, there are those who simply don’t agree with the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M) statement that only men should serve in a pastoral role in the church. Second, there are churches that are totally in agreement with the BF&M on the issue, but who have chosen to use the nomenclature of “pastor” for a staff position like “Children’s Pastor.” Biblically, this is a misuse of the term “pastor” and churches in this category should simply change their nomenclature and designate the title along the lines of “Children’s Minister” or “Children’s Director.”
There is another significant practical reason why the Law Amendment is necessary. Let me summarize it in four points:
1. Evidence indicates that perhaps as many as 1,800 women currently serve in roles of pastoral leadership in approximately 1,200 Southern Baptist churches. These churches are out of step with the BF&M, and more importantly, with Scripture, which limits the office/role of pastor to men.
2. The amendment serves to clarify what the BF&M states in Article VI on this issue, which reads: “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” (Article VI, Paragraph 1).
3. The preamble to the BF&M 1963 and BF&M 2000 includes the phrase “closely identified,” language quoted from the 1963 committee on the revision of the BF&M [“The 1963 committee rightly sought to identify and affirm ‘certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified’”]. Some have interpreted this phrase to mean the door is left open for churches to disagree with some items in our confessional statement, including that the office of pastor is limited to men. In short, though the BF&M is clear on the issue of only male leadership in the office of pastor in a local church, the BF&M has no binding authority over any local SBC church.
4. Inclusion of the amendment in the SBC constitution would clarify that any church employing a woman in the office/role of pastor would be “not in friendly cooperation” with the SBC.
This is a watershed issue for Southern Baptists. The Law-Sanchez Amendment is an important clarifying statement that affirms what we believe about this issue based on clear Scriptural teaching.
Answering Objections to the Law-Sanchez Amendment
There have been several objections raised against the Law-Sanchez Amendment.
Objections include:
1. The amendment is unnecessary since it merely restates the BF&M article on church polity.
2. The amendment circumvents local church autonomy.
3. The SBC should promote our mission not police our churches.
4. This is merely about terminology.
5. We can distinguish between function and office with respect to the word “pastor.”
6. The amendment is hurtful to some women.
7. The amendment will curtail giving to the Cooperative Program.
It is interesting to me that some of these very arguments were made by moderates/liberals to support women pastors during the days of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. I find none of these objections valid. All are based on false assumptions or faulty exegesis. Let me give three examples.
Local church autonomy is in no way threatened by any decision made by the SBC. Local churches are free to believe or do as they wish. All Southern Baptist churches freely choose to cooperate with the SBC. Likewise, the SBC has its own right of autonomy such that it can determine and define the boundaries of cooperation for churches.
Another example concerns Cooperative Program giving. At this point in SBC life, whether the Law-Sanchez Amendment passes or fails, some churches will reduce their CP giving or leave the convention altogether. I am convinced that far more churches will choose the latter route if the Law-Sanchez Amendment fails.
A third example is the claim that a woman can be a pastor-teacher, even if under the auspices of a senior pastor, because “pastoring” is a gift and not an office. Appeal is often made to Ephesians 4:11 to try to distinguish the office of pastor from the gift of pastoring. However, exegetically this is not what the passage teaches. Paul is saying that Christ has given people as apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers. The gift to the church is gifted men. There is no indication in the text that God gave any people of the female gender to the church as pastor-teachers (though the church is blessed with myriads of gifted women in roles of leadership and ministry in every generation).
Essentially, if the Law-Sanchez Amendment merely restates what the BF&M states about the office of pastor (which most who object to the Law Amendment affirm); and if the BF&M merely restates what Scripture states about the office of pastor; then one has no valid ground to oppose the amendment. If Scripture is clear that only men may serve in the office/role of pastor/elder/overseer, then all objections to the Law-Sanchez Amendment become null and void. Scripture trumps everything.
While I am aware of those few in the SBC who openly advocate for women in roles of pastoral leadership in direct contradiction to Scripture and contrary to the BF&M, most Southern Baptists affirm the Bible’s teaching on this point. However, when I listen to some of the arguments made against the amendment, I sometimes have the troubling feeling some are wearing theological camouflage and do not really believe complementarianism but are trying hard not to tell us they don’t believe it. For most Southern Baptists, and certainly for me, egalitarianism is in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches about marriage and church polity.
Article 18 of the BF&M (on The Family) was amended two years before the BF&M 2000 was presented and approved. That article on complementarianism was reaffirmed in the vote to affirm the BF&M 2000.
Conclusion
The issue of women pastors is one of the important dividing lines between true conservative churches and churches that are too accommodating to the culture. History clearly demonstrates that once denominations open the door to women in the office and role of pastor, it is just a matter of time until they slide into compromise on other doctrinal/ethical issues such as acceptance of homosexuality.
I have spoken with some of those members elected by the SBC to compose the committee that revised the BF&M 1963twenty-five years ago. Their proposed revisions were approved at the SBC annual meeting in 2000. All of those I have spoken to have affirmed without equivocation the following: that every member of the committee, including the women on the committee, clearly understood that the term “pastor” was to be used only of men. Listen to the words of Dr. Richard Land, a member of the revision committee:
I am certain that the overwhelming consensus among the study committee members was that the prohibition on women as “pastors” was meant to be inclusive, and did not leave room for female church staff members to be accorded even a qualified version of that title. Frankly, I believe it is impossible in Southern Baptist culture and tradition for a church to confer even a qualified portion of the term “pastor” on a woman staff member without conferring some degree of pastoral authority upon her, which would be a violation of New Testament teaching.” (“The Southern Baptists’ ‘Pastor’ Controversy: A Study in Terminology’s Pitfalls and Their Consequences,” Christian Post, August 5, 2022.)
The time has come for clarity and candor on this issue. This is no mere tempest in a teapot or minor skirmish or doctrinal squabble over nomenclature. Scripture, the BF&M, and recent Southern Baptist history all converge in favor of the Law-Sanchez Amendment. If one believes that Scripture and the BF&M affirm only men in the office and role of pastor, then opposition to the Law-Sanchez Amendment is confusing at best. Southern Baptists must draw the line here.
I believe every Southern Baptist and every messenger to the 2024 Southern Baptist Convention would like to know where I stand on this issue. . . and why.