Breaking: SBC Decisively Approves Law Amendment, Restores Male-Only Pastorship
The amendment’s necessity was reinforced by a recent study from Kevin McClure exposing that nearly 2,000 women in the SBC were serving in pastoral roles, explicitly defying the SBC’s biblical tradition and stated constitutional principles. His study found that 1,844 women were serving in pastoral roles in 1,255 SBC churches.
The Southern Baptist Convention passed an amendment that clarified the role of women/barred women from holding pastoral roles at their annual convention being held in New Orleans.
The amendment, introduced and spearheaded by Pastor Mike Law of Virginia’s Arlington Baptist Church, passed overwhelmingly with the support of approximately 80% of the SBC’s messengers by raised ballot. A subsequent motion to count a paper ballot was rejected by the messengers.
The amendment reinforces traditional Baptist teaching on the role of women in the Church, citing scripture which has informed Baptist tradition for centuries.
Southern Baptists reinforced that tradition with the SBC’s Baptist Faith & Message (2000) that reads: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
The now-passed amendment’s text is straightforward, leaving little wiggle room for potential undermining from “egalitarian” activists in the SBC.
Mike Law presented his own amendment to the floor: “I move that the Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention be amended to include an enumerated 6th item under Article 3, Paragraph 1, concerning composition. The enumerated 6th item would read: ‘6. Does not affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind.’”
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Trinitarian Heterodoxy Eclipses Marriage (Once Again)
Within the economic Trinity there is a Divine Person with a non-divine will that makes Jesus’ submission to God both possible and fitting. Accordingly, the Christ to God authority and submission is not a Trinity consideration per se but a limited consideration of the union of two natures in one hypostasis. Yet the submission of wife to husband finds its analogy to Christ to God not in an ordering of being but in creative design just the same.
A pair of books were recently released entitled: Let The Men Be Men & Let The Women Be Women. As the subtitles disclose, the respective books pertain to God’s Design For Manhood And Marriage & God’s Design For Womanhood and Marriage.
This is not a review of the books but instead I offer a brief analysis on the theological appropriateness of using unqualified persons of the Trinity as an analogy for marriage.
My wife was reading to me a portion from Chapter 2 of one of the books, wherein a passing reference to the Trinity was made. The author said he’d develop the reference more in Chapter 10. Naturally, I took a quick peak at chapter 10 because some otherwise good material on wives and husbands has been disregarded over the years due to missteps having to do with Trinity analogies. One particular egalitarian Anglican-theologian who’s well versed in Trinitarian theology has capitalized on such missteps. Others have as well. Neither Baptists nor Presbyterians should want to throw the baby out with the bath water (pun intended).
In the hope that such books are a success in bringing clarity to the complementarian discussion, I thought I’d make a few comments on some direct quotes from the book on women.
My thoughts as they relate to the doctrine of God, I think, would be shared by most Reformed theologians and pastors. We might recall that they are the ones (along with an Anglican or two) who went after Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, and others for their Trinity analogies to marriage in the summer of 2016. What I have, also, found unfortunate is that some biblical teaching on marriage has been dismissed, if not even scorned in the process, due to mistaken Theology Proper.
More than in Reformed Baptist circles, there are thin complementarians in the Reformed Presbyterian community. Many of these men have their Trinitarian theology down pat. So, any Trinity misstep by otherwise good men of God provides occasion for some to dismiss biblical complementarianism. This is understandable, which should cause certain Reformed Baptists to be more careful, if not solely for the sake of putting forth a biblical view of God, and secondly so that others might give attention to sound marriage doctrine.
From chapter 10:
The Trinity As A Model Of Submission“The Trinity” is a term that defines the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – one essence and attributes, yet three in distinct work and purpose. (Emphasis mine)
We don’t want to eclipse Divine Simplicity and the inseparable operations of the Trinity. (We might recall, that was a big deal in the Trinity debate in the summer of 2016.)
Each divine Person is operative in all God’s works. Which is to say, the works of the Trinity are indivisible. Indeed, it was the Son who died on the cross, but God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (by the Spirit). In redemption there is one distinct work and purpose, carried out through the inseparable operations of Persons when Christ, by the eternal Spirit, offered Himself without blemish to God.
Trinity is not a term that seeks to define God by “relationship” within the Godhead, if by relationship we mean personal distinctions of authority and submission. The historical Christian creeds discriminate not by eternal relationships (or economic functions) but by personal properties. Accordingly, any orthodox reference to “relationship” must be interpreted as personal properties ad intra that cash out as eternal modes of being. Any eternal relationship may only be conceived of in terms of relations of eternal origin, not subject to temporal-sequence or personal roles. Historically, the church has defined Trinity in terms of the eternal origins of existence: unbegogtenness of the Father; eternal generation of the Son; and procession of the Holy Spirit.
Paul is not making a theological statement about the Trinity but rather making application about Christ, a divine human being, submitting to his Father. In other words, the focus isn’t on the economic Trinity per se but more narrowly on economic relations of the incarnate Son as he submits as the God-man in his humanity to God, who is Christ’s head. (Matthew 27:46; John 20:17; Revelation 3:2,12) Paul’s focus is on congruous order, not Theology Proper.
Not to parse things too fine, but some have pressed the analogy too far. There is an ordering that is natural and fitting – the woman to her husband; the husband, as head, to Christ; and Christ to God.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Progressives Seem Willing to Erase Women. Are We Going to Let Them?
Although the assertion that women’s rights should be protected would have been uncontroversial only a few years ago, it is now seen as divisive and hateful even to suggest that biological males are robbing biological females of opportunities and awards. Incredibly, many progressives are in favor of accelerating this trend. But unless people are comfortable with Lia Thomas winning national championships meant for women and Rachel Levine being heralded as a pioneer for women, Americans of every background and political persuasion must be willing to stand up to gender identity ideology.
According to the NCAA, Lia Thomas is a national champion. After touching the wall first at the conclusion of the 500-yard freestyle, Thomas’s win was heralded by ESPN, The New York Times, and CNN as historic. And it’s true. Thomas’ championship-clinching swim at last week’s NCAA women’s national championship meet capped off a record-breaking season in which the University of Pennsylvania swimmer set multiple pool, school, and league records.
Of course, as most people know by now, this success has been overshadowed by the fact that Thomas (born William Thomas) is a biological male who identifies as a woman. And although Thomas’ victories have attracted national attention, few mainstream outlets or publications seem willing to discuss the danger the swimmer’s success poses to women’s sports or how this story fits within the broader trend of undermining women’s rights under the guise of LGBT rights. In short, the muted response to Thomas’ season is another reminder that many progressives are willing to sacrifice women’s rights if it means staying in the good graces of those leading the transgender revolution.
Although women’s collegiate swimming is not usually front-page news, Thomas’s story has rightfully received a fair amount of coverage over the past few weeks. Thomas, who swam for three seasons on the men’s varsity team before switching to the women’s team this season, is now recognized as one of the nation’s most accomplished woman swimmers. And in terms of swimming times and statistics, Thomas’ season really has been one for the record books.
The University of Pennsylvania women’s swim team participated in eight meets this season. In each of these meets, Thomas won at least one race and repeatedly won multiple races. At the Zippy Invitational, Thomas competed against swimmers from ten schools and won the 200, 500, and 1650-yard races. Thomas’ times of 4:34:06 (500-yard) and 15:59:71 (1650-yard) were pool, meet, and program records. At the Ivy League Championships, Thomas won the 100-yard free (a meet, pool, and program record), 200 free (a meet and pool record), and 500 free (a pool record).
In summary, in one season on the women’s team, Thomas won 19 events, three league titles, one national championship (500-yard freestyle), set multiple records, and finished the season as the top-ranked swimmer for Division I Mid-Major schools, as well as the highest-rated Ivy League and University of Pennsylvania women’s swimmer.
Transgender Tide
There are other stories besides Thomas’s collegiate swimming career that show how many progressives are willing to sacrifice opportunities and rights for women on the altar of political correctness For example, New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard was allowed to compete in women’s weightlifting at last summer’s Olympic Games in Tokyo, depriving a biological woman of a chance to represent her country.
Read More -
My Only Friend Is Darkness
By giving expression to our most bleak feelings, Psalm 88 comforts us in a curious way. It shows us that we are not alone in our doubts, confusions, and complaints. Not only have other believers felt the same things, but God has inscripturated those sentiments to assure us that it is legitimate to feel such things and to pour them out in prayer.”[4] Psalm 88 may well have comforted our Savior during His sufferings.
Psalm 88 is the darkest Psalm in the Book of Psalms. The LORD is only mentioned in three different places; once in a prayer of belief: “LORD, God of my salvation … incline Your ear to my cry” (vs. 1-2), and twice in an urgent plea for rescue which has gone unheard: “LORD, I have called daily upon You … LORD, why do You cast off my soul?” (vs. 9, 14). Perhaps you are experiencing a dark time of grief right now. As the darkness and sorrow threaten to overwhelm you, look to Psalm 88 as a guide for your thoughts and prayers and a beacon of hope in the midst of a confusing, threatening, or unchanging providence.
Although we do not know the circumstances that inspired Psalm 88, verses 1-9 contain many words that paint a picture of real, deep, raw, and personal grief. The Psalmist complains that his life draws near to the grave; he is adrift; he is cast into the lowest pit. Darkness is his constant companion. Four verses of Psalm 88 use the imagery of water to create a picture of complete and hopeless despair. The Psalmist has been laid in the depths; God has afflicted him with all His waves; he is shut up and cannot get out; terrors cut him off like water, and have engulfed him. The water experience in this Psalm is not a family-friendly outing to the beach. Rather, it is the terror of drowning with no one nearby to deliver. There is no escape.
Images of Raw Grief
Psalm 88 brings to mind one of the greatest sorrows that can befall us: a parent experiencing the death of their child. Almost two years later, the images remain engraved in my memory. Grown men weeping shamelessly. A mother, weak and wounded in every way – physically, emotionally, and spiritually – being helped to the graveside of her child. The finality of the dirt being thrown onto the casket. The awful feeling that everything about this scene is wrong.
Sometimes the enemy of death seems to come as a relief – after a full life well-lived, an ailing grandparent is taken home to glory. At other times, the enemy of death comes as an unexpected shock, a nighttime horror, a sorrow that will be carried with us to our own graves.
Grief Remembered: Naomi
The Bible doesn’t sugar-coat grief and despair. In fact, many of our favorite characters are surrounded with sorrow, which doesn’t go away just because there’s a happy ending. A good example of this sorrow is Naomi, whose story is told in the book of Ruth.
We are told of Naomi’s loss in cryptic, non-descriptive terms. After departing her hometown to live in a foreign – and pagan – country, we are told, “Then Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons” (Ruth 1:4). We aren’t told the nature of the calamity that took Naomi’s husband away; we don’t know how old he was; we don’t know what kind of marriage they had. We only know that his sons were not yet married, and that, after Elimelech’s death, both of the sons married women from their new country and lived there for about ten years. We are told, again in terse, unemotional language: “Then both Mahlon and Chilion also died; so the woman survived her two sons and her husband” (Ruth 1:5).
How did the death of her husband and two sons impact Naomi? We know that she grieved deeply. In fact, her grief was so great that she asked for her name to be changed. In Hebrew culture, names were of great importance: your name told a story and had important significance. “To the Hebrew way of thinking, to know a person’s name is to know his character, to know him. The name is the person.”[1]When Naomi finally returned to her home country with her daughter-in-law in tow, the women of the town came out to greet her, calling, “Is this Naomi?” We are told the full distress of Naomi’s sorrow when she responds: “Do not call me Naomi; call me Mara, for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the LORD has brought me home again empty. Why do you call me Naomi, since the LORD has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me?” (Ruth 1:20-21).
Read More
Related Posts: