Al Mohler to propose an amendment to SBC constitution to confirm ban on female pastors

They've been heading in that direction for the last few decades, so I can't say I'm surprised. A bit sad to see them move one more step farther from their previous values of the autonomy of local congregations and the priesthood of the believer, but they've been moving away from those values since the '80s.

RileyG said:

Were you raised Southern Baptist?

Click to expand...

Yes, and I watched the transformation of the denomination in the 1980s with dismay. One of the things that I valued about the Southern Baptist tradition that I grew up in was the idea that the individual, reading the Bible carefully and with prayer and reflection, should follow their own conscience. There was not a creed or statement of faith that we had to profess allegiance to; the Bible alone was our guide, or so it was said.

As you can see from my profile, I have come to value the long centuries of church Tradition, and I have moved to a church community that values Scripture and Tradition together, as partners (along with Reason, the famous 3-legged stool). But I still resist the imposition of detailed statements of faith that go beyond the basics of statements like the Nicene Creed. I'm resisting that in my own Anglican church family (it's one of my disagreements with GAFCON), and I'm sad to see it being lost in the SBC. The loss of autonomy of the individual conscience in the SBC actually bothers me more than the issue of women's ordination. An SBC that expels a congregation for interpreting the Bible according to its own conscience is not the SBC that I knew and loved growing up.

PloverWing said:

They've been heading in that direction for the last few decades, so I can't say I'm surprised. A bit sad to see them move one more step farther from their previous values of the autonomy of local congregations and the priesthood of the believer, but they've been moving away from those values since the '80s.

Click to expand...

Part of that impression is in how the article phrases it. The SBC doesn't have the authority to dictate to member churches such things; it can only vote not to have them in convention. This is known as disfellowship and has happened before.

An example told to me by a delegate during the Monica Lewinski scandal was a delegate tried to introduce a motion to "excommunicate" (not the correct term) Bill Clinton. It was patiently explained to the delegate that this was a matter that only the church where he was a member could undertake. Note: Have seen old records of a Baptist church where, when it took such action against a member, it was noted by "run off" in the minutes. Long story short, it never even got to the level of a motion.

For the SBC to essentially say "Churches will..." would require a larger change than what's being discussed. If that's what was being discussed, there'd be a major story here. This is more a case of virtue signaling, something that SBC resolutions and such have been "eat up with" for a long time. Just as before, the SBC would refuse to accept membership of a church with a woman pastor, and just as before, the SBC would disfellowship churches that ordained a woman pastor. There's no real change.

PloverWing said:

An SBC that expels a congregation for interpreting the Bible according to its own conscience is not the SBC that I knew and loved growing up.

Click to expand...

Hate to tell you, but unless you're much older than me, that is the SBC. The principle of the priesthood of the believer isn't a blank check. There comes a point where belief isn't Baptist in general or Southern Baptist in particular. A good reference is Hobb's What Baptists Believe. Without looking up the particulars, remembered one case where the SBC disfellowshipped a member church that was allowing a non-Christian religion to use part of the premises for worship. If you have a pastor who comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ didn't have to die on the Cross (as one pastor did), that's flies in the face of what Baptists believe. What Christians do, too, but that's another topic.

Tuur said:

Hate to tell you, but unless you're much older than me, that is the SBC. The principle of the priesthood of the believer isn't a blank check. There comes a point where belief isn't Baptist in general or Southern Baptist in particular. A good reference is Hobb's What Baptists Believe.

Click to expand...

It's possible that I'm older than you. It's also possible that I grew up in a congregation and a region of the country that was more open to the ideas that the SBC eventually excluded.

You do raise a good point about Baptist tradition, though. In my reading and reflection as an adult, I have come to appreciate a couple of things. One is that the Fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century affected most of the religious groups in the US, even the ones that didn't have an obvious split, and the SBC didn't escape the effects of this movement. The other is that all churches have strong traditions, even the ones that say they don't. "No creed but the Bible" was never true.

I still think the SBC are making a mistake, but they're not my home any more. I suppose it's up to them to define their own traditions. The American Baptists and Cooperative Baptists exist as alternatives, for those who see themselves as Baptists but cannot stay in the SBC.

PloverWing said:

It's possible that I'm older than you. It's also possible that I grew up in a congregation and a region of the country that was more open to the ideas that the SBC eventually excluded.

You do raise a good point about Baptist tradition, though. In my reading and reflection as an adult, I have come to appreciate a couple of things. One is that the Fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century affected most of the religious groups in the US, even the ones that didn't have an obvious split, and the SBC didn't escape the effects of this movement. The other is that all churches have strong traditions, even the ones that say they don't. "No creed but the Bible" was never true.

I still think the SBC are making a mistake, but they're not my home any more. I suppose it's up to them to define their own traditions. The American Baptists and Cooperative Baptists exist as alternatives, for those who see themselves as Baptists but cannot stay in the SBC.

Click to expand...

The problem is that there is no kind of line drawn defining accepted practices, then it’s not a denomination at all. Should the SBC have tolerated one particular congregation that allowed non-Christian worship services in their church building? That actually happened, the end result being that church was disfellowshipped.

I consider 1 Timothy 3:1-10. This says a man needs to have one wife, and be "blameless". And he needs to be proven in his own home first, to see if he can rule his own house well. And if he can, then it is understood that he can take good care of God's people.

What I see is he is able to take care of people and rule in our Heavenly Father's family caring and sharing way. And he has had his wife helping him to get real correction so he become "blameless" and learns how to relate in marriage and bringing up children. Does SBC make sure they get pastors, like *this*? Or, do they make a bunch of rules without following this basic rule in the Bible? I think I have seen how churches will hire a guy just out of seminary, and expect him to take care of everything; and a smart type-A personality guy might pass, making things happen.

But I see we need families as example to help people. The man, then, does not pastor by himself, but he has his wife and children included in his example. And so . . . the whole family pastors > it is not only, then, a matter of if a man or a woman can pastor. You need both sharing and helping each other, with the help of the children, too.

Because God our Father, with His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit, is about family > the whole family pastors.

com7fy8 said:

I consider 1 Timothy 3:1-10. This says a man needs to have one wife, and be "blameless". And he needs to be proven in his own home first, to see if he can rule his own house well. And if he can, then it is understood that he can take good care of God's people.

What I see is he is able to take care of people and rule in our Heavenly Father's family caring and sharing way. And he has had his wife helping him to get real correction so he become "blameless" and learns how to relate in marriage and bringing up children. Does SBC make sure they get pastors, like *this*? Or, do they make a bunch of rules without following this basic rule in the Bible? I think I have seen how churches will hire a guy just out of seminary, and expect him to take care of everything; and a smart type-A personality guy might pass, making things happen.

Click to expand...

No, as far as I know the SBC leaves the hiring (and firing) of pastors up to the local church. The statement of faith does site 1 Timothy 2:9-14 and 1 Timothy 3:1-15. However, (other than not being female) the SBC leaves it up to the local church to determine if the man meets the qualifications as laid out in scripture. As a result, you do sometimes get men in positions of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon within the SBC that most assuredly do not meet the qualifications as laid out in scripture - and they often get a pass since they are men.

Now that I've mentioned that the SBC statement of faith does site 1 Timothy 2:9-14. 1 Timothy 2:9 is..

1 Timothy 2:9 - Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel,

Click to expand...

Is the next step to have some type of SBC fashion police or official dress code that the ladies of the SBC must adhere to in order for the local church to remain in good fellowship with the SBC? It IS in Scripture and in the offical SBC statement of faith after all.... Maybe they'll decide that women's fashion can be left up to the local church?

In the title > "to confirm ban on female pastors"

I have seen how men can be said to be pastors, but they do not seem to obey God's way of leading >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

So, in case a leader wants to ban women, does this man have the qualification to pastor? Or, is he trying to lord himself over women?? I see how a Christian leader wins obedience, by means of his good example > indeed, Jesus Himself has left us His example > not just a bunch of rules for controlling us. This includes Christ's example of how He was loving, on the cross >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

And so, a qualified pastor leads by this example, of obeying the example of Jesus. And this includes how Jesus related with His ladies. He used Mary Magdalene, by the way, to preach His resurrection to the disciples > note how Peter and John went to the grave, first, but Jesus did not appear to them, there. But after they left, then was when Jesus appeared to Mary > we can see this in John 20:1-18.

Also, if a leader is calling for the banning of female pastors, does this person have the qualification of self-control? Our Apostle Paul says a leader must have ***self-control*** > note in Titus 1:8, how a qualified leader is "self-controlled". This, I would consider, includes how the person is not a **food abuser**, because he has matured in self-control of the Holy Spirit. I think I have seen some number of men in leadership who are food abusers. But does this get attention? Or . . . are ones cleverly and/or ignorantly making a major issue about women so attention is away from how some number of men "might" not be qualified to lead as examples of self-control.

Plus, he needs to be "sober-minded" > Titus 1:8 > to me, this includes how he is sober emotionally so he does not argue and complain, but he obeys Philippians 2:14 >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing," (Philippians 2:14)

So, are men being evaluated as closely as women are?

Even if God really does mean for only men to pastor, it is possible for a group to do this the wrong away, including by picking only on women, but not dealing with if their men are really qualified. I do not know if SBC leaders are attentive to what qualifies a man to pastor. But in case people are doing things the wrong way, this does not automatically mean women may pastor. So . . . looking at how ones do this the wrong way is not how to evaluate what God's word really means.

For example > if God wants a wife to be subject to her husband > ones accuse this to mean men can abuse and control their wives. And in their fear they can feel that would be slavery. But, in any case, Jesus does not mean for us to be in fear and controlling anyone and slavery! But if He means for anyone to be subject to someone else, He means how God would make this good . . . like how it is good for us to be subject to Jesus. If you have a good doctor, it can be wise to be subject to your doctor. And God would provide someone who is for your good to be over you. Your head, by the way, is qualified to be over your body . . . if, of course, you have good thinking going on in your head and your head is healthy.

And our Father is the Head of Christ > "the head of Christ is God", we have in 1 Corinthians 11:3. So, one being head over another can be good. But it seems there are women screaming against God having a man as a woman's head. However, if men can be wrong . . . so can women > for one things, why has a women married someone she does not trust enough to be her head?? Jesus can provide a real man.

However, the head does well to sense what is going on in its body, to get feedback, and to stay submissive to how the body needs to be and needs to do things. Plus, neither the head nor the body can do well without the other > cut the neck, and see how well they do without each other! I mean, if God means for the man to be the head of his wife . . . only this can work.

But many people are not submissive to Jesus in His peace; and so they do not have "rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:29) The real reason, then, why both men and women do not have peace and rest is not because of any wrong people they have connected with, but because they have not gotten into Jesus Christ's "yoke" > Matthew 11:28-30 > and learned how to obey Jesus in His peace.

There are plenty of men and of women who have gotten into the pulpit, but they do not have Jesus Christ's "rest for your souls."

And plenty are married, but they are not committed to doing only what Jesus has us doing with "rest for your souls" (in Matthew 11:29) and to relate "without complaining and disputing" (Philippians 2:14). And in case Jesus did not guide them together, they can not live in His peace, unless they trust in Him by submitting to Him in His personal guiding with His sweetly soothing soul rest. And so, in case a woman did not make sure with God about who she married, of course she could get with a wrong person who she does not trust to be her head. But this is not what God's word means, by telling wives to be subject to their own husbands. Peter says for wives to be submissive to their husbands, too, by the way . . . not only Paul says this > 1 Peter 3:1-4.

But ones have cleverly, or ignorantly, kept attention to criticizing Paul, without mentioning Peter.

JustaPewFiller said:

No, as far as I know the SBC leaves the hiring (and firing) of pastors up to the local church. The statement of faith does site 1 Timothy 2:9-14 and 1 Timothy 3:1-15. However, (other than not being female) the SBC leaves it up to the local church to determine if the man meets the qualifications as laid out in scripture. As a result, you do sometimes get men in positions of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon within the SBC that most assuredly do not meet the qualifications as laid out in scripture - and they often get a pass since they are men.

Click to expand...

Not quite. Pastors are ordained after a theological examination by a panel of ministers. Note that while AI claims this is a local (congregation) decision, the other ministers are not part of that church. Ordination services are treated like a foregone conclusion, but the panel of ministers are not guaranteed to pass the candidate on for the ordination. Hazily recall a humorous story about an examination panel meeting on a hot summer day before air conditioning. which I won't repeat because it's only half remembered, but it was basically at the conclusion of the examination.

Once waited in the church sanctuary as a friend was being examined and it was hardly perfunctory. It lasted long enough that I ended up estimating the height, length, and width of the sanctuary by counting paneling.

The ordination of deacons is much less involved and is solely done by the church. I hate to say it, but had a friend who went "church shopping" until he found one who'd ordain him as a deacon. And such as that is why the old joke goes that the preacher's kids get mean by playing with the deacons' kids.

The hiring of ministers is left to each church and involves a nomination committee selected by the church. Note that I've seen some Baptist ministers who had no business in the pulpit. Unfortunately, that includes some who attended seminaries. That led to a backlash with an outcome no better than what they had to begin with.

Tuur said:

Not quite. Pastors are ordained after a theological examination by a panel of ministers. Note that while AI claims this is a local (congregation) decision, the other ministers are not part of that church. Ordination services are treated like a foregone conclusion, but the panel of ministers are not guaranteed to pass the candidate on for the ordination. Hazily recall a humorous story about an examination panel meeting on a hot summer day before air conditioning. which I won't repeat because it's only half remembered, but it was basically at the conclusion of the examination.

Once waited in the church sanctuary as a friend was being examined and it was hardly perfunctory. It lasted long enough that I ended up estimating the height, length, and width of the sanctuary by counting paneling.

The ordination of deacons is much less involved and is solely done by the church. I hate to say it, but had a friend who went "church shopping" until he found one who'd ordain him as a deacon. And such as that is why the old joke goes that the preacher's kids get mean by playing with the deacons' kids.

The hiring of ministers is left to each church and involves a nomination committee selected by the church. Note that I've seen some Baptist ministers who had no business in the pulpit. Unfortunately, that includes some who attended seminaries. That led to a backlash with an outcome no better than what they had to begin with.

Click to expand...

Thanks, yes, ordination is that way for a new pastor. But, I meant more the hiring of an already ordained pastor.

For example, in the SBC church I attended at the time, the pastor had to retire due to medical issues. The church ended up hiring a pastor that had been ordained in the SBC years ago. No "re-ordination" was necessary.

I do know of one man who wanted to be an SBC ordained pastor. One panel of SBC ministers would not ordain him, but another did. As you say, it is not forgone.

To the topic of the thread - I've been reading lots of posts on facebook, X, various other discussion forums around this.

An aside first, Mohler calling this the "Truth and Unity Amendment" certainly says something.. mostly it says that he has evidently picked up some marketing knowledge somewhere along the way.

As for the comments I've read other places on this, the range of arguments both for and against is as expected and follow the same currents as previous debates on this. However, there is a concern that there are those in the SBC, that due to the wording including "function", will attempt to use this a tool to prevent women from doing much more than cooking, cleaning, decorating and nursery... of course, with a man "overseeing" all of those while the women do the work.

Unfounded concerns? I guess we'll see...

Or act as the church accountant or song leader or musician or teaching children's Sunday School. The latter has come up so often in the family that it's almost traditional, except there's no "legacy" factor. One grandmother was simultaneously a teacher in a Baptist and a Methodist church. No, I don't know how the scheduling worked.

There are two issues here. The one in the OP is whether this different than what the SBC already does. I don't think it is, and mark it up as the sort of virtue signaling the SBC has gotten into. The other is 1 Timothy 3 and 1 Timothy 2:12. That is the big thing. I know of a particular newspaper that "had it in" for the SBC because they disagreed with not ordaining women to preach, but their argument wasn't theological and more "Oh, that's so terrible," without any theological explanation or, if they were honest, consideration. The important thing in light of 1 Timothy is how to reconcile Paul's statement theological with the ordination of women. I'm assuming that such arguments exist, but they usually aren't cited, particularly by the secular press who might not know the epistles from the gospels.

JustaPewFiller said:

Thanks, yes, ordination is that way for a new pastor. But, I meant more the hiring of an already ordained pastor.

Click to expand...

This is true. The nomination committee attends different churches and listens to prospective candidates and submit candidates to the church, who then votes on hearing preachers who might be interested. There have been some mighty good preachers in the pulpit and there have been some mighty poor ones, including a couple I suspected of being shysters, but that's just my opinion.

Frankly, I know a little more about the Church of God ordination practice, courtesy of helping someone with their study (I heard that snicker in the back). The interesting thing is that the wife of the candidate is also involved, as is theological education. That said, wasn't impressed by one professor, but that's generally par for the course with any college. It wasn't as bad as one I had (mathematics) who let his alcoholism get to the point where he lost his job. Most likely I'm wrong, but it seemed more rigorous that Baptist ordination.

Tuur said:

Frankly, I know a little more about the Church of God ordination practice, courtesy of helping someone with their study (I heard that snicker in the back). The interesting thing is that the wife of the candidate is also involved, as is theological education. That said, wasn't impressed by one professor, but that's generally par for the course with any college. It wasn't as bad as one I had (mathematics) who let his alcoholism get to the point where he lost his job. Most likely I'm wrong, but it seemed more rigorous that Baptist ordination.

Click to expand...

Can you clarify what Church of God you are referring to? There are unfortunately a plethora of groups that call themselves by that name with radically different beliefs and it's not quite clear which one you are referring to.

JSRG said:

Can you clarify what Church of God you are referring to? There are unfortunately a plethora of groups that call themselves by that name with radically different beliefs and it's not quite clear which one you are referring to.

Click to expand...

Not really. He was in the ordination process for the Church of God is all I know. The church he attended at the time is based in Georgia, if that helps, and has the cross and a red semi-circle slash-like emblem as its logo.