The goddess of our age is beckoning us to open the door for all manner of vices. In the name of affirmation, empathy, and toleration of churches with female pastors, we are being manipulated to believe decisive, clear, courageous, and mature reaffirmation of the Baptist Faith & Message is “dismissive” of women. Adopting the Amendment in June 2024 allows Southern Baptists to address the theological, anthropological, and ecclesiological problem of female pastors decisively, for the good of all in our denomination.

Joe Rigney has written a most timely and needed book: Leadership and Emotional Sabotage: Resisting the Anxiety That Will Wreck Your Family, Destroy Your Church, and Ruin the World. In this short, precise, and punchy offering, Rigney provides a sort of prescription regarding his diagnosis of “untethered empathy”(see here and here) and its awful effects on broader culture and evangelicalism.
My conclusion upon reading this book? Buy a handful of copies, keep one for yourself, and give the others to those in your immediate circle. We live in a rather unserious and incoherent world, and the sober-minded, glad-hearted, Christ-settled posture Rigney calls us to is just what the Good Doctor ordered for the fever of anxiety gripping our age.
In this article, I will take Rigney’s insights and apply them directly to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Rigney is self-admittedly building off the work of Edwin Friedman,[1] and highlights his five features of cultural breakdown. I will demonstrate how there is evidence of each of these features present in current SBC debates (particularly as it relates to our response to abuse and female pastors), and then offer a path forward for a sober-minded, stable, and ready response (and not reaction!) in Indianapolis at the SBC annual meeting this June. The value of Rigney’s work is that it helps readers like me, who may be mystified as to why professing conservative and complementarian influences in the SBC take a “complementarianism for me but not for thee” approach to adopting the Law Amendment. In other words, Rigney diagnoses the cultural pathologies which undergird a resistance to a robust confessionalism, namely, the effeminacy of untethered empathy.
The last couple of years, conservatives within the SBC have (rightly) warned of a “liberal drift.” But the big takeaway from Rigney’s book as I think about my denomination is that it is more accurate to say we in the SBC are being emotionally steered. Drift is a passive term that removes culpability or at least blames the leftward movement on passivity at the helm. It is more accurate to say that the SBC has allowed those who hate her to take the helm indirectly by emotional blackmail through God’s people tasked with leading the denomination. For more on this, see Mark Coppenger’s offering to this month’s Christ Over All theme.
How to Respond to Empathetic Drunkards
Rigney puts his finger on one of the more troubling trends within evangelicalism today. And that is how the world relies on professing Christians to get drunk on worldiness’s disordered passions and as a result, pressure fellow believers to pursue worldly ends (41–43). The world, the flesh, and the Devil are counting on Christians to forsake sober-mindedness, and this unholy trinity can then use these Christians to manipulate other believers. (On this point, Rigney’s exposition of Galatians 2 and Paul’s confrontation of Peter is brilliant, 81–84.)
What is true of groups can also play out on the individual level. Someone who is a conduit of emotions often becomes even more self-righteous than the original emoter. To give an example: Pastor Billy kindly exhorts one of his church members, Sally, to not lead a women’s Bible study using a prosperity preacher’s curriculum. Sally weeps profusely to another member, Larry, about pastor Billy’s “heavy-handedness” and “doctrinal hair-splitting.” Larry gets angry and resolves to publicly confront his pastor—all the while not realizing that he has been emotionally steered into the role of a lackey for worldliness. Rigney explains the dynamics at play in the parable, “Sometimes one person’s sadness elicits sadness in others. But other times, sadness in one person may draw out anger in another (either at them or at the third party who is responsible for their pain) . . . Untethered empathy puts other people’s passions in the driver’s seat” (43).
Rigney unpacks the two ways in which the world will attempt to steer believers through name-calling: “ugly labels for true things, and ugly labels for false things” (40). The former tactic is whenever the world labels Christians “bigoted” for something along the lines of affirming there are two genders, believing 2+2=4, or daring to suggest God calls men to be the head of the church and home.
The latter tactic is when the world calls believers an ugly term, “Misrepresenting our beliefs and then slap[ping] an ugly label on their misrepresentation” (41). This latter category is particularly significant, because by it the world exploits the (good) Christian desire to shine bright for the gospel. After all, it may seem kind of hard to shine bright when your reputation is tarnished. However, here we must remember that “the Pharisees called Jesus a drunkard and a glutton (which he wasn’t)” (41). The world (and worldly “Christians”) rely heavily on the notion that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”—believing that controversy surrounding an individual always points to that individual’s sin. But Christians can take heart, there was a lot of smoke around Christ, and He has overcome the world. The source of the smoke around His ministry was from the pit of hell, not Him, and so Rigney calls us to ensure that (like Jesus) we live above reproach, rendering such slander baseless (1 Pet. 3:16; 4:4). I think this concept is worth the price of Rigney’s book, because this is precisely how the SBC has been steered in dangerous doctrinal and cultural directions over the last decade or so. Rigney rightly calls for Christians to not be moved by ugly labels, but stabilized by God’s word.
It is significant to note how those who get drunk on other’s passions claim the moral high ground as they revile others. Oftentimes, those emotionally steering the SBC are fully convinced they are playing the role of hero, when in reality they are recklessly pressuring or endangering the entire denomination by projecting the guilt of one or some onto the whole body. Unsurprisingly, this tactic also carries with it the added benefit of raising their own stock as an “ally” in the eyes of the world’s disordered notion of justice. After all, “the world is watching” (if you ask empathetic drunkards in our midst). Instead, I would encourage myself and fellow SBC messengers to live coram deo—before the face of God. God is watching, and we ought prostrate ourselves before Him rather than preen before the world (Isa. 8:12–13).
So, what are Christians to do when emotional drunkards weaponize empathy to steer us? Rigney answers with the following strategy: (1) Take responsibility for your emotions. (2) Grow in self-awareness, and pay attention to what particular passions manipulate you. (3) Calibrate your standards by the word of God. (4) Increase your own tolerance for emotional pain and distress. (5) Be willing to be called ugly names. (6) Ensure the slanders are actually false. (7) Do not repay slander for slander. (8) Root all resistance to emotional sabotage in a sincere desire to please God (46–50).
Emotional Sabotage and the SBC
With the basic thesis of Rigney’s book in place, I will now turn to specific ways the SBC is being emotionally steered, and how we ought to respond in keeping with Rigney’s strategy above. As I mentioned earlier, I will do this in conjunction with Friedman’s five features of cultural breakdown Rigney cites. Features one and two (Reactivity and Herding) will be used to analyze how the SBC has reacted to sexual abuse, while three through five (Blame-Displacement, Quick-fix mentality, and Failure of nerve) provide moral clarity for dealing with the issue of female pastors and the proposed Law Amendment.
The SBC and Abuse
Friedman’s first two features of cultural breakdown (highlighted by Rigney) are as follows:
(1) Reactivity: “An unending cycle of intense reactions of each member to events and to one another . . . Whether over-reactive and hysterical or passive-aggressive and checked-out, the common thread is that passions of the members govern and dictate both the mood of the body and its direction” (19).
(2) Herding: “A process where togetherness triumphs over individuality and everyone adapts to the least mature members of the community…The goal becomes ‘peace’ at all costs, otherwise known as appeasement . . . leaders . . . are expected to take responsibility not only for their own actions, but for the (re)actions of others. Disruptions by the immature will be accommodated; anyone who seeks to take a stand will be characterized as cruel, heartless, insensitive, unfeeling, uncooperative, selfish, and cold” (19–20).
These features of chronic anxiety are best seen in the SBC reaction to abuse. Regarding Reactivity, Mark Coppenger says the hard but necessary truth regarding the unfounded inflation of abuse cases in the SBC being wielded to move the convention to overreaction against our own polity. He writes, “We’ve been assured that the list [of sexual abusers] ‘only scratches the surface’ or is ‘just the tip of the iceberg’ . . . What we ‘extremists’ [an ugly label for false things] are saying is that the problem is not so great as to [emotionally] sabotage our polity, expose ourselves gratuitously to litigation, and divert untold millions of missions/ministry dollars in search of a cure for our dubious affliction.” We are being manipulated to believe there is a full-blown systemic abuse crisis in SBC churches, and this trojan horse has and is being used to emotionally steer some to act against SBC polity without warrant.
As Josh Abbotoy and Jon Whitehead point out, “[P]olitical operatives and demagogues are trying to steer the Convention away from Baptist solutions.” This is a prime example of what Rigney exposes when he says, “The world frequently counts on this (good) Christian impulse in order to steer Christians by means of other Christians . . . Such pressure is frequently harder to resist, since it comes, not from the unbelieving world directly, but from the world through God’s people” (41). Whitehead shows receipts for how this is currently happening in the SBC, citing a noted advocate and SBC critic who says, “If the SBC winds up needing to sell nearly all its assets for the sake of providing reparations and restitution to those it has so grievously harmed, then this would be for the good.”
Southern Baptist pastor Heath Lambert has written a tremendously insightful series of essays entitled “Four Facts about Sexual Abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention.” Each essay is worth reading (which is why I share each of them below). As one reads through them, it becomes apparent that the kind of sobriety Lambert displays is precisely what Rigney calls us to. Lambert is clear-headed, stable, and ready to act, able to separate friend from foe and to respond to this difficult topic with the kind of joy that flows from someone who is approved before the Lord.
Seriously, take a few minutes to look through each of his essays.

Abuse Is a Real Problem, but Is Not What We Were Told
Not Everyone Offering Help Is Our Friend
The Southern Baptist Convention Is a Powerful Force for Good
We Must Have Solutions That Understand the Way Our Convention Works.

The responses to Lambert’s essays on X only illustrate the type of baseless charges that will be thrown at those who take a stand against appeasement. Just as Rigney reminds us when he speaks of Herding above: “anyone who seeks to take a stand will be characterized as cruel, heartless, insensitive, unfeeling, uncooperative, selfish, and cold.”
In the last essay, Lambert provides a clarion call to messengers heading into Indy:
It is important to know that the difference between the acceptance or rejection of any proposal has nothing to do with anyone’s commitment to ending abuse. The only people who like abuse are abusers. The difference between a proposal’s acceptance or rejection is how faithfully the proposal honors our cooperative partnership in the convention.
Read More
Related Posts:

Deformed masculinity results from affirming a false antithesis. In so doing, two complementary aspects of manhood are wrongly made out to compete with one another inherently. When it comes to principles such as male headship and servant leadership, we must be quick to celebrate and affirm what God calls good. Simply put, we cannot pick and choose what aspects or characteristics of masculinity we prefer and leave the others aside, or reject principles of biblical masculinity due to ways in which other professing Christians may abuse such doctrines. Falling prey to a false antithesis on masculinity is a surefire way to become a caricature and overcorrect into error as we swing the pendulum violently the other direction. Instead, we ought to hold to all the Bible calls good, allowing God’s Word to have its sanctifying effect upon us, de-caricaturing us by conforming us into the image of Christ.[37]

In this essay, I take aim at a false antithesis pertaining to God’s purposes and calling for men. For true masculinity to be pursued and attained, we must not fall prey to a false antithesis, which wrongly posits an either/or in place of a both/and. As D.A. Carson asks and answers:
So which shall we choose? Experience or truth? The left wing of the airplane, or the right? Love or integrity? Study or service? Evangelism or discipleship? The front wheels of a car, or the rear? Subjective knowledge or objective knowledge? Faith or obedience? Damn all false antithesis to hell, for they generate false gods, they perpetuate idols, they twist and distort our souls, they launch the church into violent pendulum swings whose oscillations succeed only in dividing brothers and sisters in Christ.[1]
We could easily and legitimately add the following questions to Carson’s fine list: Which shall real men choose? Courage or gentleness?[2] Nature or cultural customs (stereotypes)?[3] Male headship or servant leadership? It is this last false antithesis I take on in this essay. Of course, the correct answer for each of these questions is: yes. As fallen human beings, we are liable to label masculine virtues as vices or to label male vices as virtuous. And as Carson does well to draw out, the damnable lie at the heart of such false antitheses breeds violent pendulum swings that divide the body of Christ. It seems to me that in the broader evangelical world, the common cycle relating to gender and sexuality (and more specifically for this essay, masculinity) debates, is a swing toward an egalitarian or narrow complementarian view on one side of the false antithesis, which is met by an equal and opposite overcorrection by the biblical patriarchy movement,[4] leaving evangelicals with whiplash and blame toward the other side for the injury.[5] In what follows, the “camps” of egalitarianism, narrow complementarianism, broad complementarianism, and biblical patriarchy provide a conceptual framework through which I will think through the false antithesis of male headship and servant leadership. I will begin by unpacking the historical movement from egalitarianism to complementarianism to biblical patriarchy in evangelical circles, arguing that broad complementarianism is closer to biblical patriarchy than it is egalitarianism or narrow complementarianism. I will then make the case as to why I find broad complementarianism the more viable label for conservative evangelicals to rally around in the last section of this essay.
Before I interact with other positions, let me put my cards on the table. I am convinced the root error in many (if not all) reductionistic presentations of masculinity is that the good, true, and beautiful are treated like a buffet rather than a full course meal. Manhood is indeed good, true, and beautiful, and therefore ought to be revered and celebrated as a crucial component in God’s good design for human flourishing. When this is not the case, men will plague society as domineering despots or apathetic abdicators. The question is not whether men will lead, but how? True to my complementarian leanings, I contend that rather than compete with one another, male headship and servant leadership complement one another, such that apart from both, true masculinity cannot be attained in theory or practice.
I am a broad complementarian, which means that I understand there to be a covenantal headship given to men in both the church and home. Furthermore, since grace restores nature, and in no way abrogates it or cuts against the grain of God’s design, the call for men to lead has necessary implications beyond the church and home. In other words, male headship in the church and home is a reflection of created order being restored, therefore it would be unnatural for egalitarian principles to ground the broader society. God’s gracious covenantal arrangements correspond with nature, meaning they are not arbitrary but fitting with who he has made men to be and what he calls them to do. This is not to suggest that all men are the head of all women, as the covenantal headship of men over women is limited to the husband and wife relationship, and the church under its male pastors/elders. What this means is that natural law or created order as it relates to the relationship between men and women in society does not speak with the applicational specificity that Scripture does regarding male headship in the church and home.[6] So, prudential reasoning and epistemic humility are required as to how we ought to apply the principle of male headship beyond the church and home. But let me be very clear, we must affirm and honor nature/created order in our reasoning and in our application via cultural customs for human flourishing to occur.[7] With my cards now on the table, it is time to engage others.
Egalitarianism, Complementarianism, and Patriarchy
Increasingly, egalitarians are charging complementarians with being patriarchal, and the biblical patriarchy movement is charging complementarianism with being functional egalitarians. This is due in part, I believe, to the reality that complementarianism has situated itself “between” egalitarianism and patriarchalism, not because we complementarians are attempting to be the perfect mean or “third way,” but because we find tendencies in these other movements to denigrate or reject good aspects of masculinity. This may be best evidenced by how egalitarians reject male headship; they and some narrow complementarians then confuse servant leadership for male servitude, and in response the biblical patriarchy crowd scoffs at servant leadership and doubles down on male headship.[8] I find there to be evidence of the false antithesis being wrongly affirmed in each of these reflexes. I by no means think that real and perceived abuses of male headship invalidates it as a principle. I also do not cede servant leadership to those who abuse it.[9]  Glad affirmation and promotion of all that God calls men to is the aim. Using two good doctrines/principles as a proxy war is not the way forward.
Egalitarians see male headship as a product of sin, not as a good component of God’s created order. Increasingly, to reject male headship, egalitarians are forced to not only denigrate the clarity of the created order,[10] but even more brazenly, Scripture too, by speaking of God’s Word as though it is an irreducibly cultural artifact.[11] In so doing, egalitarians undermine the reality that the Bible’s calling for men to lead in the home, church, and society is a reflection of nature. In other words, male headship cannot be summarily dismissed as merely an arbitrary and now-outmoded social construct of a bygone era. To reject male headship as a principle is akin to rejecting the institution of marriage on the false grounds that it is a mere social construct, because both are revealed in Scripture to be pre-fall/sin realities, both of which are ordained by God and called “good.” Mature Christians, whose powers of discernment are trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil, will recognize the feminist-egalitarian spirit of the age we live in as evil, and not partner with the works of darkness (Heb. 5:14; Eph. 5:6–12).
On the other hand, there is a growing trend to advocate for “biblical patriarchy” or “dominionism” in the Reformed sector of the evangelical world. Now, there is more agreement between a broad complementarian such as myself and the biblical patriarchy movement than with egalitarianism and even narrow complementarians. As Kevin DeYoung rightly argues, “The biblical vision of complementarity cannot be true without something like patriarchy also being true.”[12] What he means by this is that the reality of male headship in Scripture is inherent to complementarianism. Thus, if there were a scale with egalitarianism labeled as a 1, and biblical patriarchy a 5, broad complementarianism would not be a 3 right in the middle (a narrow complementarian would be a 2–3), but a 4, closer to patriarchy than to egalitarianism. The suitability of men and women for one another as affirmed in creation and redemption is hierarchical pertaining to their roles and calling. To not affirm this, DeYoung suggests, is to choose anarchy over God’s good design.[13] He is correct. As Herman Bavinck rightly explains, “Authority and obedience, independence and subordination, equality and inequality, correspondence and variation, unity of nature and diversity of gifts and callings—all these have been present in the family from the very beginning, and in no sense came into existence as a result of sin.”[14] This logic is grounded in a right reading of Genesis 1–2 and is affirmed in Paul’s clear teaching in places like 1 Timothy 2:12–15 and 1 Corinthians 11:7–12.
In fact, this is why I think egalitarian critiques of complementarianism (not to mention the increasing number of narrow complementarian critiques of broad complementarianism), tend to conflate patriarchy with broad complementarianism.[15] These critiques are both right and wrong in their conflation. Right, because broad complementarianism readily affirms the fatherhood of our Father in heaven.
Read More
Related Posts:

Why is it that God is so patient with the hard-heartedness of mankind after the flood? In short: the Noahic covenant! Yahweh is clear that post-flood mankind still has the same heart problem that has wreaked havoc on the earth since the original transgression in the Garden. So, the fear and dread he puts in the animals towards humanity, combined with the death penalty for murder,[9] as well as the command to be fruitful and multiply, are all concrete expressions of God’s common grace, whereby he promises to not wipe out humanity again in his wrath, and he curbs the effects of sin so that humanity does not destroy itself (see Gen. 9:1–7).

In last month’s theme on Genesis 1–11, I dealt with the Noahic covenant in some detail by engaging David VanDrunen’s teaching on it in relation to the covenant of creation/works/human nature/law. I made the case there that I found his interpretation and application of the Noahic covenant to be far too modest, insofar as he teaches that it holds out no hope of attaining the new creation and is merely a stopgap for sin which preserves the first creation. In essence, he singles the Noahic covenant out so that it alone accounts for how God rules over creation universally post-fall until new creation, and in so doing he is guilty of counting the limited word count of the Noahic covenant, without weighing its role within the larger narrative of Scripture.
In this essay, I aim to briefly highlight the Noahic covenant’s placement and role within the larger metanarrative of Scripture from a Progressive Covenantalist perspective. I believe VanDrunen would largely agree with the first three points to be introduced in this article, but would have significant reservations on points four and five, which I will unpack in part two. This is because he sharply demarcates common and redemptive grace and sees the Noahic covenant as non-redemptive. I however believe it brims with the promise and hope of the protoevangelium (“first gospel” promise) from Genesis 3:15.
As I stated in the previous essay, we must read each biblical covenant on its own terms and in keeping with its placement within the biblical storyline. In the words of Stephen Wellum, “By tracing out the covenants in this fashion, we are able to see how the entire plan of God is organically related and how it reaches its culmination and fulfillment in Christ . . . we will rightly see how the parts of God’s plan fit with the whole.”[1] To that end, I contend a proper understanding of the Noahic covenant is that it: (1) reaffirms the creation covenant, (2) reminds God and man of Yahweh’s promise to never destroy the earth in judgment again, (3) remains in force until Christ’s return, (4) renders two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man, and (5) reveals Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness while anticipating the greater glory of the new covenant. Again, in today’s essay I will discuss the first three points, and in tomorrow’s followup essay I will unpack points four and five.
The Noahic Covenant…
…Reaffirms the Covenant of Creation
The word covenant does not appear in the opening chapters of Genesis until Noah enters the scene (Gen. 6:18; 9:9). Peter Gentry has highlighted the important difference between “creating a covenant” (karat berit) and “renewing/establishing a covenant previously created” (heqim berit). He also rightly observes that only the latter phrase heqim berit is used for the Noahic covenant (Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17) as opposed to the normal expression for the creation of a covenant (karat berit). For example, karat berit is invoked when Yahweh initiates the Abrahamic covenant, but by using the language of heqim berit in the Noahic covenant God’s means “to affirm (verbally) the continued validity of a prior commitment—that is, to affirm that one is still committed to the covenant relationship as established or initiated previously.”[2]
This logic raises the question: if the first time(s) the word “covenant” is used in Scripture is Genesis 6 and 9, how can God speak of reaffirming a previous covenant? It is here that the Reformed tradition has rightly affirmed an original covenant of works/Adamic covenant, or what we Progressive Covenantalists would rather call the Creation covenant. A crucial prooftext for understanding the Noahic covenant to be a reaffirmation of a creation covenant is Hosea 6:7, which reads: “But like Adam [Israel and Judah] transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Passages like this one give sound biblical and theological grounds to conclude God made a covenant with Adam as the vice-regent of creation, one that Adam failed to keep.[3]
Read More
Related Posts: