I’m adamantly opposed to The Law Amendment, because it clearly encroaches upon the autonomy of the local church, in my judgment, and ratifies a form of church government that gives anyone with the title “pastor” in a local church, “authority” and status reserved for males only. The Law Amendment removes the common titles of “Senior Pastor”, “Lead Pastor”, “Associate Pastor”, “Children’s Pastor”, “Women’s Pastor”, “Youth and Young Adult Pastor” etc.,….from a church’s org chart, unless those positions are occupied by a male. The BFM2K was sold on the basis that Article 6 referenced only lead or Senior pastors. Now, 20+ yrs later, we’re told it references any one who carries the title “pastor” in any capacity. In common Baptist ecclesiology, a local church was viewed as having “one” pastor. Anyone else carrying this title was automatically assumed to be, and actually were an assistant, associate, a specific ministry area pastor…who reported to “the pastor” or his assignee. The Law Amendment is a radical, revolutionary departure from traditional Baptist practice and belief regarding ecclesiology. Both Criswell and Patterson believed that the local church had “one ruling pastor”(Criswell’s language), who led the church assisted by Associates, staff members, and deacons. The ecclesiology espoused by Criswell and Patterson still is the dominant ecclesiology practiced in the average Black Baptist Church, National and Southern Baptist. Seemingly, Asian, Hispanic, and other minorities often employ the Criswell/Patterson model, which was typical in prior generations. The one thing I do appreciate about the Law Amendment is the absolute clarity it brings. I wish the proponents of the Law Amendment had been this transparent and clear prior to the adoption of the BFM2K. Obviously, we would have avoided the watershed moment we’ll face in Indianapolis. If it passes, I think one among several unintended consequences is that SBC seminaries would become unattractive to hundreds of female students who want to stake out middle ground, conceding scripturally and culturally the sbc reserves the senior pastor role to males. However they believe it’s biblical to have a greater latitude and titles for women’s roles beyond the Senior Pastors title and role. If SBC seminaries would be confined to teach within the parameters of the Law Amendment as orthodoxy for Baptist Churches, that would be tragic, and make seminaries an unhealthy place for many, if not most sbc women. Future church planters(like myself 40 yrs ago) would understand, that as much as they may want to partner with the sbc to do church planting, they would have to violate their conscience and convictions, on the Law Amendment hurdle to do so. Men with integrity will find that a bridge too far. Others would compromise for the money. The Law Amendment will hurt seminary enrollment and church planting tremendously. Those are just two unintended consequences. It’s well known it will disqualify and alienate many, if not the vast majority of minority churches. Apparently this doesn’t matter, and it may be an intended, or unintended consequence. Thank God for the clarity, no matter the outcome, that it will bring.
@pastordmack To your point about women looking elsewhere, I have a daughter who received a call to missions. She was planning to go through the IMB until the Law Amendment came out. She will no longer do so, and will no longer attend an SBC seminary.
@ScottCross_8 You would think that this would be a no brainer to the SBC, but obviously it is not. Congratulations to your daughter for her graduate school decision.
@pastordmack She is still going to an SBC university for the nursing degree though, but only because no other Christian school in our area had one worth the effort.