What an honor it is for Jodi and me to represent our church, Englewood Baptist Church in Rocky Mount, NC as Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention. Over 12,000 Messengers from more than 4,400 autonomous churches convened for our two-day annual meeting. Such a meeting is often a mixed blessing of both joyful encouragement and frustration. In that way, it is a microcosm of family life.
It is my privilege and practice to report back to my church and share highlights of the meeting. This is not comprehensive and is filtered through my perspective and pastoral assessment. Certainly, you can read more and learn more in other places…which I encourage as long as you recognize that every report is filtered in like manner.
SBC Pastor’s Conference
One of my favorite parts of the Convention precedes the opening session. A two-day pastor’s conference filled with expository preaching and dynamic worship sets the stage for our meeting. This year featured some of the greatest preachers in our tribe of churches, including a message from our own Pastor Emeritus, Dr. Michael Cloer. I cannot begin to tell you how important it is for my own soul care to be under great preaching. Yes, the pastor needs shepherding as well.
I am a Southern Baptist. This is not a heritage thing for me. It is a conviction based on the fact that with all of our imperfections, there is no better system than a Convention of Independent Churches functioning with autonomy under Christ to cooperate in fulfilling the Great Commission. I love that we as the SBC have the top educational and training entities in the world through our six seminaries; that we train, support, equip, and deploy more missionaries to more places than any of us could do on our own; and that we do Compassion ministry better than any collection of churches in the world (SEND Relief).
IMB Sending Celebration
One of the greatest highlights of the Convention involved celebrating and sending 79 missionaries across the globe to places far and farther. Many of the Missionaries shared their assigned destination, but most could not even reveal their faces due to the security and safety concerns in the lands they would travel to with their families. Our International Mission Board President, Dr. Paul Chitwood, reminded our Convention that these families join a long line of missionaries…the earliest of which often carried their belonging inside the coffin that they carried with them, believing that they would probably give their lives on the fields where they would serve in the cause of Christ. Let me simply say…”No greater love…”
Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force Update
Other highlights included the reauthorization of the Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force for a second year. The 2022 Convention, in acknowledgment of the existence of abuse among our churches in the past, passed sweeping reforms intended to make churches safer, to hold abusers accountable, and to make it more difficult for abusers to subtly persist within our tribe of churches. We received an update on the soon-coming implementation of a database that would serve as a reference resource for those ministers and volunteers who had ever confessed to, been convicted of, or were found civilly liable for sexual abuse. This aspect of the database is without any substantive disagreement. A more controversial element of inclusion of “credibly accused” abusers in the database is still being worked through but is expected to be considered in some form. The controversy surrounding this provision is not without warrant. On one hand, it is generally believed that far more cases of abuse exist than are ever reported and that only a small number of those accused in court are ever convicted. The hope is that by listing these names as “credibly accused” in the database, the ability for an abuser to migrate from church to church unchecked will be greatly inhibited. This is a worthy goal. The deep-seated concern (which I personally share) is that innocent people, pastors and members alike, may be falsely accused and that our Convention will be responsible for harming others through perpetuating false accusations. To be fair, the standard of “credibly accused” is a high standard in many cases…equivalent to that of a civil court jury (i.e. a preponderance of the evidence rather than that of a criminal court- beyond reasonable doubt). The weakness of this position is both practical and biblical.
- First, sometimes people lie. This is why the standard of proof in biblical terms is “two or three witnesses.” In cases of sexual abuse, this is an almost impossible standard to achieve since, other than the Lord Himself, there are often only two parties who bear witness to the alleged action. The solution proposed would use a third-party investigative expert that is “trauma-informed” and experienced in abuse investigations to render a judgment as to whether the accused party most likely committed the offense. Let me say very clearly, as a former police officer and a trained criminal investigator with extensive experience interviewing/interrogating witnesses and suspect: There are no expert investigators who can render a conclusion with perfect accuracy. Truth be known…even a polygraph machine (i.e. a lie detector) is not 100% predictive. As such, while it is true that some appropriately accused but not convicted abusers will be caught, there is a statistical probability that an innocent person will be falsely accused, and an investigator will judge them “credibly accused.” Under the “credibly accused” criteria, we as a Convention will share in the injustice of falsely accusing an individual by perpetuating their credibly accused status on a database, effectively thereby, branding him or her as a sexual abuser.
- As for me, I am opposed to this fourth criterion being added to the database and I will continue to try to stop its implementation, while at the same time fully supporting the three acceptable standards and supporting to the fullest extent of my ability any victim of sexual abuse in her/his pursuit of justice in action against an abuser.
- Additionally, I hold a biblical objection. The people of God are COMMANDED (Present, Middle, Imperative) to not “receive” (welcome, receive, accept) an accusation against an elder (pastor) except on the testimony of two or three witnesses. (1 Timothy 5:19). I take this to mean that we are accountable to God for violating His instructions by receiving the accusation, if we do so without the biblical requirement of two or three witnesses. We are guilty of receiving the accusation…even if we do not even put it into the database. (See Acts 16:21 for the distinction between accepting and observing a propositional truth).
- Without a doubt, such a view of “receiving an accusation” is in direct conflict with the current human science standard of “trauma-informed” methodology. A good definition of the approach is:
Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) is an approach in the human service field that assumes that an individual is more likely than not to have a history of trauma.[i] Another way of saying this is to begin with the assumption that the reporter is trustworthy in her/his allegation if supporting evidence is apparent. While WELL-INTENTIONED, this is an extrabiblical (and at times unbiblical) standard.
- As people who affirm Sola Scripture (Scripture alone) as our authority for faith and practice, I believe we MUST choose the biblical standard over the cultural norm…ultimately agreeing that there is no possible way that we can guarantee perfect justice in this world; however, trusting in the ultimate justice of God…resting in the fact that no sin ever goes unpunished…either by the sinner or the substitutionary payment of Jesus. Oswald Chambers articulated this view well in his work, My Utmost for His Highest:
The Sermon on the Mount indicates that when we are on a mission for Jesus Christ, there is no time to stand up for ourselves. Jesus says, in effect, “Don’t worry about whether or not you are being treated justly.” Looking for justice is actually a sign that we have been diverted from our devotion to Him. Never look for justice in this world, but never cease to give it. If we look for justice, we will only begin to complain and to indulge ourselves in the discontent of self-pity, as if to say, “Why should I be treated like this?” If we are devoted to Jesus Christ, we have nothing to do with what we encounter, whether it is just or unjust. In essence, Jesus says, “Continue steadily on with what I have told you to do, and I will guard your life. If you try to guard it yourself, you remove yourself from My deliverance.” Even the most devout among us become atheistic in this regard— we do not believe Him. We put our common sense on the throne and then attach God’s name to it. We do lean to our own understanding, instead of trusting God with all our hearts (see Proverbs 3:5-6).[ii]
Oswald Chambers: My Utmost for His Highest, June 27 entry
- Finally, and on a practical note, the weightiness of a mere accusation in our current cultural context demands judiciousness and even fear when we curate a name in a database. No church can reasonably consider hiring or allowing a person to serve whose name has been placed on a database, even if they came to a different conclusion than a trained investigator. The presence of a name on a database is tantamount to a conviction and places a potential employer in an impossible position in a litigious society. To consider hiring a person listed in the database opens the church to litigation and places it outside of friendly cooperation with the SBC. This reality, even if unintended, will affect lives and harm falsely accused people, while doing nothing to bring justice to a victim.
- While more could be said, I will leave this here and humbly ask for grace as you consider my observations and hear my unequivocal statement…I will always seek to help bring justice to any and every victim within my scope of ability to help.
Membership Appeals
Other actions taken during the Convention that received significant interest were the appeals from three churches to the convention to have their membership reinstated. These included:
- A church in Kentucky led by a female pastor for decades.
- Saddleback Church which undertook actions to ordain women to the office of pastor, recognized the wife of their senior pastor as a teaching pastor with some corporate teaching responsibilities and authorities, and recently named a female pastor to serve as the Campus pastor in the church. Dr. Warren, the founding and former pastor of the church made a large show of his recent shift from complementarian theology to an egalitarian position.
- A church that had been removed from fellowship by their Association and State Convention in Florida for employing a sexual abuser and failing to cooperate with these entities in addressing their concerns.
All of the appeals were denied, effectively upholding the decision to declare each church to be not in ”friendly cooperation” with the SBC, thus disfellowshipping the churches. This action was difficult and became necessary when the very public actions and appeals brought the doctrinal convictions on complementarianism to the fore and demanded a verdict. The moment was met, by in large, with a sober attitude, while there were some who actually cheered this de facto disfellowshipping. Consequently, such jubilance is unbiblical and directly conflicts with the spirit of Galatians 6:1-2. I grieve the disciplinary loss of any church. I also seek the glory of God in doctrinal adherence. He is worthy of our obedience in every aspect of faith.
Resolutions
Related to these actions was the passage of resolutions, including one specifically affirming the value and contribution of women to the Kingdom and in furtherance of the Great Commission. It is summarized in part:
We affirm the intrinsic value of women as Image Bearers, recognize their contribution to the church and home, as disciplers, and celebrate their role in fulfilling the Great Commission. (See more on the Resolutions that were adopted: https://thebaptistpaper.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBC-Resolutions-adopted-June-13-2023.pdf and the function of Resolutions https://thebaptistpaper.org/sbc-messengers-adopt-six-resolutions-in-june-13-business-session/ .
The Law Amendment
The other significant action of the Convention (in my estimation) related to “The Law Amendment.” The Amendment to our Constitution requires adoption in two consecutive Annual Meetings to be enacted. While it passed the first reading this year, it must also be adopted in the 2024 Convention meeting. From the Baptist Standard Paper’s reporting:
SBC messengers voted to approve a change to Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the SBC Constitution. The amended item stipulates a cooperating SBC church “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”[iii]
I personally opposed this Amendment and hope that it is defeated at the 2024 Convention. Please allow me to explain why and preface that explanation with some foundational issues.
First, I am unapologetically Complementarian in my theology. That means that while both men and women are created in the Image of God and possess equally intrinsic worth before God and should be equally valued by all of God’s creation, men and women are complementary in design. Men and women have purposes, roles, and abilities that are not always equal but complementary in function. The differences are natural. Men and women are made differently. The differences are emotional. We “feel” differently. The differences are spiritual. We function differently before God.
Second, the Church is God’s design and operates according to His defined order. God in wisdom and according to His good design, established that qualified and called men would serve as those with the responsibility and authority to lead His Church. Authority and Gifting are not synonymous. While both men and women may function in the shepherding and discipling task, and while both men and women may be gifted to teach, and while men and women both may be gifted to lead, only QUALIFIED and CALLED men serve in the role of elders/overseers/pastors in God’s church.
- The Overseer- is a function/role/ or OFFICE that one aspires (orego– desire, strive for) to. Not all men are overseers, but all overseers are men-
- Overseers must also exhibit the qualities enumerated in the rest of the section.
- Overseers must also be able/apt to teach. Didaktikos– skillful in teaching.
1 Timothy 3:1–7 (NASB95)
1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
So, not all people (men or women) are qualified to serve as Overseers.
- If a man were gentle and peaceable, but had three wives, he would be unqualified.
- If he were free from the love of money, but was addicted to wine, or unable to teach, he could not be an overseer.
- If a man had a bad reputation with those outside the church or were not above reproach in his conduct within the church, he could not be an overseer.
- If a PERSON were able to teach, were gentle, peaceable, hospitable, but were a woman, she could not be an overseer. In fact, Paul expressly forbid women functioning in a teaching or authority role over men in the church. This is something he grounded in Creation order.
1 Timothy 2:12–13 (NASB95)
12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
A woman was able to teach, and even encouraged to do so as it related to other women and children. This Paul tied to the good and honorable design of God as an act of honor through obedience and submission to God. He cited the authority as the word (logos) of God.
Titus 2:3–5 (NASB95)
3Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,
4so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,
5to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
And Yes, there is an allusion to the household and the establishing and maintaining of the home. In our Western context, this is rejected as archaic or oppressive. It is fair to also mention that other specifically Christian beliefs are also considered archaic. A pro-life position is rejected as controlling, a traditional view of marriage and sexuality is rejected as narrow and controlling…oppressive. Remember, just because something is resisted or rejected does not mean it is wrong. Godliness is opposed out of hand by the ungodly at every turn.
Now also notice that to Titus, Paul equated the Overseer and the Elder as the same or interchangeable terms.
Titus 1:5–9 (NASB95)
5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint (kathistemi- to appoint/put in charge/ authority) elders (presbuteros) in every city as I directed you,
6namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
7For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,
8but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,
9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Notice that in Titus 1:6, the qualities of the elder repeat what was noted in 1 Timothy 3 for an overseer. In 1:7, He actually refers to the elder as an overseer and then continues enumerating the qualities we saw in 1 Timothy 3. So, elder and overseer are used interchangeably.
Notice further, that Peter includes Pastor/Shepherd with the interchangeable terms of Elder and Overseer.
1 Peter 5:1–4 (NASB95)
1Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,
2shepherd the flock (verb- poimnion) of God among you, exercising oversight (episkopeo) not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;
3nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
Shepherd the flock– One word in the Greek, alluding to the people of God or the church of God who God gave pastors authority over as they shepherd. The way we shepherd the flock is by exercising oversight (episkopos– overseer). Notice the relationship again of shepherding and exercising oversight:
Acts 20:28–30 (NASB95)
28“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
So, an overseer is an elder, and an overseer shepherds. While some traditions separate these offices and functions, in the Baptist tradition, we have seen all three functions/roles (elders/overseers/shepherds) as referring to one “office” based on their intersection as indicated in the diagram below.
Application for our Church:
As such, our church will not ordain an unqualified person to serve as an overseer/elder/ shepherd (pastor). This includes pugnacious men, those people with a love of money, or a woman even if she possessed abilities and gifts akin to those men who might serve in this role. Our reason is not misogynistic (rooted in a hatred or disdain for women); rather, it is rooted in a desire to align as closely as possible to the clear teaching of Scripture.
Furthermore, even if a woman were responsible and gifted in shepherding women or children (a biblically encouraged task), to eliminate confusion for the uninformed, we would not assign her the title of pastor/shepherd. She is a godly disciple and disciple-maker who shepherds others…like every Connect Group leader and many of our gifted deacons, among others.
Objections:
Perhaps this is cultural and applied to only that region in Asia minor or in that timeframe.
This is a popular argument. If so, it held true and was uncontested in earnest until the modern era , and the feminist movement in the West.
If this is cultural, could it not be updated to a more modern cultural understanding?
Of course, anything can be updated or changed, but that does not make it more faithful or biblically accurate. It may, in fact, make it doctrinally unsound.
Isn’t there some disagreement among good people and sound churches over this teaching?
Yes. Clearly. Good churches and pastors according to their own conscience have the right to disagree and a responsibility to pursue their earnest convictions. Such pursuits should not be pragmatic but biblically informed matters of conscience. The disagreement does not indicate the veracity of conflicting truths; rather, it indicates the misunderstanding that is at times inevitable in our broken world.
Can we cooperate with churches that conclude differently than we do?
Yes. As an autonomous church, we can partner or cooperate, under Christ’s leadership, with anyone we wish. Of course, we want to be sober minded about our connections and partnerships. We would not want to compromise on primary doctrines; however, some secondary matters should be left to church autonomy.
Doesn’t making this a prominent issue risk communicating a devaluing of sisters in Christ?
Of course, this is a reality. However, the response is not to eliminate the distinctive but to inform with grace the earnest motivation of fidelity to Christ. Disciples are known by their love for one another so there is no place for unloving conduct. Disciples are commanded to pursue unity, but not unity at all costs. It is the Unity of the Faith that we pursue. Truth is truth. Period, only, and always. The closer we all get to truth, the more unified we are.
Will pursuing this cause of clarification create angst or weaken partnerships?
Yes. I think that is inevitable. Here is a great explanation from a pastor explaining to his church how this will affect them in their current titles for staff members which are assigned by doctrinal and practical conviction on their part. https://youtu.be/3QwRRJuAFX4.
My conclusion:
I am in my opposition to the Law Amendment and prayerfully hope for its defeat, for the following reasons:
- First, the current language is obviously sufficient for terminating cooperation with churches that have unqualified pastors. I base this on the fact that it was just used to sever cooperation with the three churches mentioned above.
- Second, we are a Convention, not a denomination. We have a Confession and not a Creed. It has never historically been the role of the Convention to direct doctrinal adherence on secondary or tertiary doctrines.
- Third, the affirmations of our doctrinal Confession, the BFM2K, are not uniformly viewed. Presently, there is room for some disagreement on doctrinal assertions in the BFM2K while maintaining unity of cooperation in the task of missions.
- Fourth, the spirit of exclusion is less prevalent in the New Testament than the spirit of reconciliation. I know of some dually aligned churches in the SBC that do not fit neatly under the BFM2K; however, they are churches that have been progressively moving toward closer doctrinal alignment, not further from. This act of exclusionary pursuits lacks a spirit of redemptive expression, and may prove to inhibit
- Fifth, local church autonomy demands that I focus on the doctrinal and missional pursuits of my church without dictating to another. At stake is not a primary doctrine such as Christology, Soteriology, or the Trinity. Under the Law Amendment, the issue at stake may be nothing more than a title on a business card.
- Sixth, the context of our conversation needs to be considered. Many of us are trying to win influence in our cities and herald the message of God’s redemptive love. That message is being drowned out by discussion and perceptions of secondary and tertiary matters of church organization.
- Seventh, where does this stop? The previous views of Article three concerns related to sin/moral issues. The Law Amendment adds a secondary doctrinal concern. Who is to say that in days ahead, without sufficient restraining language, that we are not policing the Lord’s Supper Table, the views on Immigration or the political plank in a platform that is not considered to be friendly cooperation. It could be that pastor Law finds himself and His church outside of friendly cooperation if next year it is amended to include the BFM2K as a new marker of cooperation, since his church ascribes to a different confession altogether (and should be able to continue to do so).
- Eighth, we have yet to explore (but will soon) the implications of excluding previously cooperating churches that are still in good standing with our cooperating state conventions and local associations. Historically, the local associations have been the guardians of doctrinal conformity, not the Convention. This inversion of doctrinal accountability imposed by the Convention’s actions gives pause.
While other things occurred and were discussed or decided, none were more important than these. I continue to be gladly connected to the SBC. We still train, support, and send better than anyone else. Even though our church is a large one, we accomplish far more in cooperation with others than we could do alone. So, I will continue to affiliate with the SBC and will continue to speak to the changes that I believe would honor the Lord. Ultimately though, I answer to the Lord and to the congregation that called me to serve them as their pastor. This is my ultimate allegiance. I am honored to represent the Lord and His church in the Convention of churches known as the Southern Baptist Convention.
Humbly submitted,
Chris Aiken
[i] https://socialwork.buffalo.edu/social-research/institutes-centers/institute-on-trauma-and-trauma-informed-care/what-is-trauma-informed-care.html
[ii] https://utmost.org. June 27th entry.
[iii] https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/baptists/sbc-approves-amendment-limiting-pastorate-to-men/V
Recent Comments