Saturday Special: I Was Right About the Law Amendment

Welcome to a Saturday special edition of When We Understand the Text. Looking at current events and responding to them with a solid understanding of scripture.

Visit our website at www .utt .com. Here once again is

Pastor Gabe. I really hope I'm wrong about the law amendment. Pastor Gabe's blog for June 11th, 2024.

This is an article I'm going to do in two parts. I have some thoughts I'm going to publish at the start of the annual meeting of the

Southern Baptist Convention, and then once we know the outcome of the convention and the hot -button issues,

I'll have some post -convention remarks. I am not at the annual meeting this time around.

I tend to go every other year, and this is my off year. It would not have been practical for my wife and I to go this year anyway.

We just moved to Arizona at the end of 2023, and we still have a house in Texas that hasn't sold.

Given our financial situation, I'd rather take the money it would cost to go to the annual meeting and put it toward our bills.

But just because I can't be there doesn't mean I don't care about what's going on.

All eyes are on Indianapolis today and tomorrow, June 11th and 12th, as over 10 ,000

Southern Baptists from across America, and indeed from around the world, gather at the Indiana Convention Center to do the business of America's largest

Protestant fellowship. The slate is crowded with hot topics, including the ongoing discussion about abuse reform and the lack of financial transparency among some

Southern Baptist entities, on top of the usual resolutions and elections. But the biggest issue facing

Southern Baptists this year has got to be the subject of women pastors and the passage of the law amendment to the

SBC Constitution. As I have shared on my podcast since New Orleans last year,

I don't believe the law amendment is going to pass. But I really hope

I'm wrong. I was there when the law amendment passed round one. I don't think it's going to get through round two.

The amendment needs the approval of two -thirds of the messengers a second time in order to pass, and I just don't think it has it.

What is the law amendment? The mainstream headlines going into this meeting have been saying that Southern Baptists are poised to ban churches with women pastors,

Associated Press headline June 6, 2024. They're referring to the law amendment. With a desire to be a biblically faithful convention, the amendment states that churches with women as pastors are not in friendly cooperation with the convention and therefore cannot be part of the

SBC. Proposed by Mike Law, pastor of Arlington Baptist Church in Arlington, Virginia, the law amendment takes language from the

Southern Baptist Statement of Faith, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and inserts it into the convention's constitution under Article III, Section 1, clarifying what it takes for a church to be in friendly cooperation with the

Southern Baptist Convention. To be part of the SBC, a church must meet these five qualifications.

A church has to be Baptist with a statement of faith that is at least consistent with the

BFM 2000. They have formally approved cooperation with the SBC. They have made financial contributions through the cooperative program or to another

Southern Baptist entity. They don't discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, and they have biblical sexual ethics.

A sixth requirement is being proposed, and that is this. A church, quote, affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by scripture, unquote.

The amendment has strong support from the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Albert Mohler, who, other than Mike Law, has played the most significant role in putting this amendment forward.

But another seminary president, Jeff Iorg, made a strong appeal to the messengers to oppose the passage of the law amendment.

There are six candidates running for president of the Southern Baptist Convention this year, and they're split in half on the law amendment.

Jared Moore, David Allen, and Clint Presley have expressed their support for the amendment. If I was attending the annual meeting,

I'd vote for Jared Moore. But Dan Spencer thinks the amendment is unnecessary, and Mike Keabone and Bruce Frank strongly oppose it.

Frank has made the comment that the law amendment is actually a downgrade from the

Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Nonsense. It uses the wording of the BFM 2000 and puts it in the

Constitution. Frank also said that in a hundred years, doctrinal precision will not matter, but only how many people were led to Christ through the

SBC. What? It is hard to imagine how Frank is qualified to pastor a church, let alone be president of the

SBC, making statements so foolish. Throw out doctrinal precision, and no one gets saved.

At the start of 1 Timothy, the very first instruction Paul gave was, don't let anyone teach any different doctrine.

At the end of the letter, he said, if anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our

Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.

He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and quarrels about words which produce constant friction.

1 Timothy 6, 3 -5. And by the way, in case I need to point this out, this is from the same letter where Paul said women cannot be pastors.

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, rather she is to remain quiet.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

1 Timothy 2, 11 -14. Sounds to me like doctrinal precision is pretty important.

This goes back to the very start of the Bible. And just like the serpent deceived Eve by saying, did

God really say? That snake is trying to get Southern Baptists to question whether or not this is any big deal.

Doctrinal precision is what will save and sustain the Southern Baptist Convention.

I have heard it said many times that a church does not need to agree with every word of in order to be a cooperating church with the

SBC. That is exactly why it's so important for Southern Baptists to be precise and state in the constitution that churches with women pastors cannot be part of the fellowship.

To be part of the fellowship gives those churches the power to influence seminaries, committees and other

SBC entities. Go join the American Baptist if you want to be a Baptist church with women pastors.

The Bible says only qualified men can be pastors. 1 Timothy 2, 11 -3, 7,

Titus 1, 5 -9. Unfortunately a lot of influential names oppose this amendment, including former

SBC presidents J .D. Greer and Ed Litton. Of course Litton opposes it because he has to copy whatever

Greer does. Perhaps the primary reason they oppose it is because they believe it means a lot of predominantly black churches will end up leaving the

SBC fellowship since many black churches ordain women as pastors. Good doctrine doesn't discriminate.

But you know what? Neither does bad doctrine. Satan doesn't care if your church is primarily red, yellow, black, white or plaid.

That one's for our Scottish brethren. Whatever way he can get you to disobey God's word, he will do it.

He's been doing it since the Garden of Eden. This has nothing to do with anyone's ethnicity and everything to do with biblical fidelity.

Why do I think the amendment won't pass? But the recent outspoken opposition to the law amendment is not the reason

I believe it's not going to pass. The reason I believe it won't pass is because I was in the back of the room of the convention hall last year when the law amendment passed the first time in New Orleans.

As I said at the start, for the amendment to officially be added to the Constitution, it needs the approval of two -thirds of the messengers at two consecutive annual meetings.

This meeting in Indy is the second go. It passed last year in New Orleans. Barely. In fact,

I'm not convinced that it did have two -thirds of the messengers in New Orleans. The law amendment went to a vote on day two of the convention, right before lunch.

Everyone voted by holding up their ballots. All in favor, hold up your ballots. Now all opposed, hold up your ballots.

And as I've shared before, sitting in the back of the room, able to survey all the ballots that went up in the air,

I was not convinced that the affirmative was two -thirds of the vote. It looked more like 55 % yes to 45 % no, or if I were to be really generous, 60 -40.

But it looked way too close to be 67 -33. By way of eye service,

President Bart Barber said the affirmative had it, and then he dismissed the convention to lunch.

Hundreds of people were exiting the convention hall when someone opposed to the passage of the amendment came to a microphone and requested a written ballot.

But his request for a written ballot was denied. As the session had ended, people were exiting and we went to lunch.

Frankly, I was surprised myself that the vote didn't go to a written ballot. This was way too important a matter to let a close vote like that go without an accurate count.

But here's what I think was going on. I think that if the vote was mildly close, the entities that controlled the platform were willing to give it to the most conservative voices in New Orleans.

It has to pass twice. So let it pass once if it's that close, maybe to keep the peace, and then we'll really decide the merits of it in Indianapolis.

Indy is not as conservative a ground as Nolens. I think the vote this year will be much further from two -thirds than it was last year.

It's true that Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, which has husband and wife lead pastors, were removed in New Orleans by a margin of 88 % to 12%.

But for whatever reason, that same percentage did not translate to voting on the law amendment.

If it doesn't pass, this is going to be a big mess. But I will wait until part two of this article to consider the future problems.

Let's wait and see how the vote will come out. The law amendment should be voted on this Wednesday morning at 10 o 'clock

Eastern Time. And like I said, I hope I'm wrong. Praying for you,

Southern Baptists. I was right about the law amendment, though I wish

I wasn't. Pastor Gabe's blog for June 14, 2024. In Acts 20, 28 -31, the

Apostle Paul said in his farewell address to the elders in Ephesus, "...pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the

Holy Spirit has made you overseers to care for the church of God which he obtained with his own blood.

For I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, and from your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things to draw away the disciples after them.

Therefore be alert." By now you already know that the law amendment failed to get the supermajority it needed to amend the

Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention, the SBC. To recap, the amendment would have required that in order to be part of the

SBC, a church had to have men as pastors. Women could not be the senior pastor, nor could they be on the pastoral staff.

In my last article, I said I hoped that I was wrong about the law amendment. I did not think that it had the votes.

It needed the approval of two -thirds of the messengers in order for the Constitution to be amended, and that vote needed to pass at two consecutive annual meetings.

It barely passed last year in New Orleans, but it failed this year in Indianapolis by a margin of 61 -39.

In this article, which is part two, I want to reflect upon what this could mean for America's largest

Protestant denomination. I'll also respond to comments about the Nicene Creed that were made at the convention, which got the historic creed trending on social media, and I'll review the luncheon hosted by the

Center for Baptist Leadership and Founders' Ministry. The Presbyterian Church of America, PCA, will get a shout out as their

General Assembly also met this week in Richmond, Virginia, at the same time the SBC was meeting in Indy.

You may not be Baptist or Presbyterian, but matters this critical in Christian institutions this large do have an effect on Christians in America and even around the world.

Reflecting upon the law amendment fail. Though the law amendment did not pass and the

ERLC was not defunded, the Southern Baptist Convention is still remarkably conservative, though they're not actually as complementarian as they come across, but that's a discussion for another time.

Regarding the last several annual meetings, I believe New Orleans and Indianapolis came out more conservative than Nashville and Anaheim.

But too many Southern Baptists love the system over sound doctrine. There are significant blind spots, holes in their theology and weaknesses in their defenses that must be dealt with or they will soon be exploited by a prowling enemy.

The debate over who is qualified to be a pastor is no small thing and dropping the law amendment was a huge miss that could have serious consequences.

In addition to the law amendment, the messengers also had to consider First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia, which the

Credentials Committee was putting forward for removal since they had women pastors on staff. The vote to remove

FBC was 92 % yes and 8 % no.

Now that is awfully strange, isn't it? How is it that 92 % of the messengers agreed that FBC should be removed, but only 61 % are in favor of a constitutional amendment that would automatically exclude any church with women pastors?

Many people were convinced that the 92 -8 margin proves that the system works fine the way it is, and there's no reason to change the

Constitution. It's already in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the SBC Statement of Faith, that pastors must be men, and on that basis alone, churches were removed from the fellowship last year and this year by the messengers, so a constitutional amendment is unneeded.

However, FBC of Alexandria, a historic Southern Baptist church, has been ordaining women as pastors since 1980.

It has taken 44 years for that church to be brought up for removal.

FBC was submitted to the Credentials Committee in 2022, so it has taken two years for the

Credentials Committee to bring them to the convention to render a judgment. A constitutional amendment would have excluded them outright.

Not only that, but there are still 1 ,800 Southern Baptist churches with women pastors.

Will the messengers be voting on removing a couple of churches at every annual meeting? At the current rate of expulsion, they should all be removed from the convention by the year 2524.

Despite the incredible margin that resulted in removing FBC of Alexandria, the fact that the law amendment failed had the mainstream media and egalitarians cheering this as a win.

Baptist Women in Ministry put out this statement, "...who voted against the law amendment because of their commitment to support and affirm women serving as pastors of all kinds in the

SBC." While it is true that the BFM 2000 says that the office of pastor, elder, or overseer is limited to men as qualified by scripture, the

BFM 2000 is a non -binding faith statement, meaning that someone could simply disagree with the part that says pastors must be men and still join the fellowship with the

SBC. Given how long it takes to remove a church with women pastors, egalitarians have the advantage here.

That 92 % majority won't last long unless the middle 31 % who voted out

FBC of Alexandria but voted down the law amendment become more resolute and realize the defenses needed to protect the convention.

The fellowship can quickly be overrun with liberal churches rejecting the authority of God's word by ordaining women pastors and later approving of all manner of perversions.

As I said in a past article and laid out the evidence, once a church or denomination begins to ordain women as pastors, it's only a matter of time before they become tolerant of LGBTQ perversions, approving of them, and ordaining homosexual clergy.

Women pastors today, sodomite pastors tomorrow. Southern Baptists may scoff at the likelihood, but this has happened to the

PCUSA, the ELCA, the Anglicans, the Methodists, and even among Southern Baptists.

The SBC's flagship school, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, first began at First Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina before it moved to its current location in Louisville, Kentucky.

FBC of Greenville appointed their first women pastors in 1989 and eventually left the

SBC in 1999. Then in 2014, they issued a statement allowing for the ordination of anyone identifying as LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

So in less than 25 years, a historic Southern Baptist church went from ordaining women to ordaining sodomites.

The law amendment can be revived, but it would take two more consecutive annual meetings in order to pass it.

That's a long time. For Southern Baptists to have let down their guard and fierce wolves already among them are ready to take advantage.

True, the fierce wolves are a minority, but it only takes a few wolves to devour a whole flock.

I'm going to skip the backstory behind why the Nicene Creed even came up at this year's annual meeting.

The context isn't important. But if you're curious, you can read this article, To Nicaea or Not to Nicaea?

That is not the question, posted by the Center for Baptist Leadership. As Mark Devine puts it, the effort to get the

Nicene Creed inserted into the BFM 2000 was, quote, a solution in search of a problem, unquote.

Well, it seems to have found a problem. On Tuesday morning, my phone, DMs, and inboxes started blowing up with friends who were baffled by comments made about the

Nicene Creed at the Southern Baptist Convention. The first one I got said, what do Southern Baptists have against the

Nicene Creed? That was when I saw the statement about the creed made by David Allen, professor of practical theology and dean of the

Adrian Rogers Center for Biblical Preaching at Mid -America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis, Tennessee. Sorry, that was a mouthful.

His comment was from a Q &A panel featuring all six men nominated for president of the

SBC. This was the same panel in which Bruce Frank said that winning souls was more important than doctrinal precision.

Dr. Allen was asked what he thought about the convention amending the BFM 2000 to include the

Nicene Creed, one of the most basic and universally accepted professions of the Christian faith.

Dr. Allen first responded by talking about how that process should work. You can agree or disagree with that.

Then he said this about the creed itself. I'm a Southern Baptist, but I'm not a big fan of ecumenism.

Sort of like in the book, The Porcine History of Philosophy and Theology, I've got all of the little pigs demonstrating the various denominations and their views.

There's a scene in that book where you have the pigs, several pigs are holding hands. It's the

Lutheran pig and the Presbyterian pig and the Anglican pig and the Episcopalian pig and they're dancing around in a circle.

Then there's one pig with a frown on his face and his arms folded and he's lying over there under the tree and of course the label there is he's the

Baptist pig. So he's not very interested in ecumenical fervor.

And I have to admit, I'm a bit like that pig. I'm a little careful, a little skittish about too much ecumenism.

And I think the Nicene Creed, while generally is a very good creed and has certainly been accepted by many traditions, there are still a couple of issues of wording in that creed that could be interpreted to foment or to produce doctrines or concepts of doctrines that we as Baptists would reject.

And so I would say, let's just take a little bit more time and look at this thing before we jump through that hoop, this convention.

Now, if the Southern Baptist Convention cannot be in agreement with the Nicene Creed, that's a big problem.

No one needs to be skittish about the Nicene Creed. As my friend Nate Pikowitz said, the

Nicene Creed is basic Christianity. You can believe more, but you really can't believe any less.

At the same time, no one should assume that David Allen rejects that we worship one God, one

Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered and was buried and rose again according to the scriptures and so on.

Likely what Dr. Allen had in mind were the lines about believing in one holy

Catholic and Apostolic Church and we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

The Catholic and Apostolic Church does not mean Roman Catholic or an apostolic slash charismatic church.

Catholic means universal, referring to all who have placed faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. And apostolic means built on the teaching of the apostles, which we have in the

Bible. One baptism for the remission of sins does not mean water baptism forgives sins, but it is the one baptism ordained by Christ for those whose sins have been forgiven.

See Acts 10 43 -48 for example. Josh Sommer, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Kansas City said, quote, upon a deeper reading of the literature surrounding

Nicaea, one baptism for the forgiveness of sins could be and has been affirmed by Baptists according to the authorial intent of the phrase.

The assumption that Baptists had to revise this statement is woefully dubious, unquote.

Regardless of what Dr. Allen meant, the Nicene Creed chatter looked bad before the Brethren and other denominations.

Of little wonder why the Southern Baptist Convention can't seem to be in agreement with who is qualified to be pastor if it has trouble agreeing with historic

Christian statements summarizing basic biblical doctrines. And speaking of bad optics, this next part is unlikely to score me any points, even in my own circles.

I'm going to address it anyway, but do receive it in the spirit of a concerned pastor, not in the spirit of an angry keyboard clacker spouting pseudo gospel insight from a coffee shop couch.

I don't like coffee anyway. Judge me as you may. Reviewing the SBC at a

Crossroads Luncheon. On Tuesday, the Center for Baptist Leadership in cooperation with Founders Ministry hosted a luncheon billed as, quote,

SBC at a Crossroads. Is the SBC for sale? How progressive money and influence is subverting the

SBC, unquote. While the ERLC was hosting a luncheon in which they interviewed former

Vice President Mike Pence, CBL and Founders hosted their own luncheon in which their keynote speaker burned the

ERLC as a left -wing pro -Democrat political arm of the Southern Baptist Convention and had the receipts to prove it.

This keynote speaker was, ironically, a woman, Daily Wire reporter

Megan Basham. At the same convention, where the messengers would soon be voting on an amendment that would limit the role of pastor to men as qualified by scripture, the

SBC at a Crossroads Luncheon, strongly in favor of the law amendment, invited a woman to deliver their keynote address.

She wasn't just a guest speaker or was there to answer questions. She was the headline speaker of the luncheon.

I remember when the announcement about the luncheon came out, expressing all this excitement over the woman who was going to deliver the keynote address.

I just had to laugh. I texted the bulletin to a few friends and said, what in the world are they thinking? Now I want to be clear.

This is nothing against Megan, and I'm not even accusing anyone of doing anything sinful. It just didn't look good.

Many on social media among believers and unbelievers were baffled by the cognitive dissonance.

Here were these two conservative ministries pushing the need for the law amendment. They featured a panel of men who expressed the need for men to step up and lead.

And then those men sat down so their keynote address could be delivered by a woman.

Listen, I love Brian and Megan Basham. I've had them both on my podcast. They are a Christian power couple of ethical journalism.

My family is subscribed to and watches World Watch News, hosted by Brian, the Big Bash. I miss when they were daily five minute updates on YouTube, but you can still subscribe to them here.

I've been reading Megan's articles since she was reviewing movies, so I am in no way calling out Megan for doing anything wrong.

Megan is like a Deborah in American evangelicalism. As God raised up Deborah to prophesy over Israel and make fools of the men who would not fight.

So God has been using Megan to expose the corrupt shepherds who are either leaving the sheep vulnerable or devouring them.

Some of the men she's called out for pushing a liberal political agenda have included Russell Moore, David French, Ed Stetzer, Rick Warren, Francis Collins, Tim Keller and J .D.

Greer. But the job she's doing is not just making fools of those cunning workmen, covert operatives and closet liberals.

It is also embarrassing conservatives. Was there really no biblically faithful and capable man who had understanding of the times?

First Chronicles, 1232, who could have done the work comparable to what Megan has done and then delivered a message of similar caliber?

Both the Center for Baptist Leadership and founders had Megan on their respective podcast to talk about the corruption she's unearthed, presented in her upcoming book,

Shepherds for Sale. Could not a man of CBL or founders choosing have said to Megan, walk me through what you have and put together a message combining his work with hers, still giving her credit for her labor, even giving a plug for her book?

And he could have preached the message that made application. Here's what we as Christians need to do in light of this.

Again, this is nothing against Megan. Her message was worthy of the standing ovation it received. And you can read it here.

I intend to read her book once it comes out. But does her keynote platform not reveal a lack of strength even among conservative

Baptist men? When the liberals took advantage of a crisis, they platformed Rachel Denhollander.

And it's as if the conservatives have responded, we'll see your Denhollander and raise you a Basham. The Southern Baptist Convention was not the only

Protestant gathering this week to do something like this. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, PCA, was also debating the roles of women and a breakout group of theirs had

Rosaria Butterfield to address a mixed room of more than a thousand people. Like Megan, she called on her denomination to be biblically faithful stewards, specifically addressing men.

She warned against the deceptions of Big Ten evangelism and Side B Christianity. And she called out

Christianity today as being a soft tool of Sodom. To the PCA, I have to ask, just as I would to Southern Baptists, was there seriously not a man among you who could have delivered just as strong a charge exposing sin and corruption and calling on men to fight the good fight of the faith?

I'm not Presbyterian, so maybe someone else with more clout in the PCA can speak to this. Respectfully, men, this is not a woman's fight.

It's ours. How can you consistently say only men can preach on the one hand while ushering a woman up to the platform to preach for you with the other?

Is Barack still too timid to go to battle unless Deborah is holding his hand?

Conclusion. Now, the reaction here is not to tell women to sit down and be quiet. The response is for men to step up and lead, no matter your church or denomination.

Would there be this confusion over the qualifications of a pastor, Orthodox historic creeds, or who speaks in what context?

If the church is led by temperate, dignified and sensible men, sound in faith, love and steadfastness,

Titus 2 .2. John Calvin said that a shepherd needs to have two voices, one for gathering the sheep and another for warding off and driving away wolves and thieves.

The scripture supplies him with the means of doing both, unquote. Are the shepherds paying careful attention to themselves and to all the flock?

God grant your church resolute men who hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, giving instruction in sound doctrine and rebuking those who contradict it.