21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:21–26 (NASB95)
We, as people, tend to implement and act according to our own sense of justice. We are quick to desire an accounting from those who have wronged us. Quick! We expect justice! Or do we?
Truthfully, we clearly see offenses toward us committed by other. We can catalog these, detail them, enumerate their consequences even…line by line. We can rush over to the dog-eared pages of the scriptures to verses that affirm our viewpoint. Verses that seem to stoke the flames of righteous indignation. And this with other believers in mind!
In my time with the Lord this morning, I was reminded (if you will) that such actions are not some small missteps with the Word; rather, they put us squarely in the crosshairs of God’s judgment toward us.
When God looks at the sins of our brothers and sisters in Christ, He sees justification (forgiveness for sins). After all, the same plea of grace that we cry before Him is voiced by our brethren…even when their sins are against us! We place ourselves at odds with the Lord when we claim some special victimization, as if the sins against us were of such a heinous nature that God’s justification could not absolve them.
As we see in Romans 3 above, our only hope and plea for our lives is the righteousness of God in Christ. Our justification is a gift by His grace. The cross was a demonstration of God’s righteousness because He did not simply declare sins forgiven but gave the required and sufficient sacrifice of the Son of God in our place. In so doing, God is just in His handling of sin, and justifier, in His grace toward us. There is NO SIN that is not atoned for…including the sin against us.
To hold a grudge or to withhold forgiveness is to set ourselves at odds with God’s grace. To demand justice is to declare the insufficiency (in our mind) of Christ’s death for the sin against us! This may seem hard…but let it sit for a moment. Christ is sufficient. His death satisfied. If He pronounces something forgiven (a person’s past, present, and future sins) then the position of faith and the battle for faith is to yield to Him, mirroring His forgiveness, and depending on His gracious gift of tuning our hearts to walk in the same truth.
25“Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions. 26“But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your transgressions.”
Mark 11:25–26 (NASB95)
May the Lord help us, as His people, to walk in the light of this truth and in the comfort of knowing that His grace is sufficient for us in even this.
In recent days, information has come to the fore of the community where I live concerning gambling and the proposal of a state-sanctioned casino only miles from my work and home. I’ve listened to my neighbors and to people in our community, as well as speaking with elected officials in both local and state government. Now, to no real surprise, there is the question of the perspective from the “faith community” to the proposal. A few observations are in order.
The Background:
As I attended a community information meeting, it became clear that something appears amiss. The Legislature of NC is considering the de facto approval of casino gambling in our state by tying such to the budget being proposed for adoption by our state officials. By tying this decision to a budget bill, it appears that legislators, even those espousing conservative values, will have cover (at worst) or reason (at best) to support the measure without ever directly affirming the issue of casino gambling.
It was notable, I believe, that every official on the program made a point to positively assert that he did not gamble. Not even as entertainment.
It was stated that this “entertainment” initiative was intended to bring much needed jobs to our community. Everyone can applaud the effort to bring well-paying jobs to our area. Further, I understand that these same legislators have experienced great difficulty in drawing other comparable jobs through economic development efforts. No one who cares about our community can desire the continuance of the status quo as it relates to jobs.
It is also claimed that many North Carolinians are already engaging in casino entertainment but are simply traveling north to Virginia to do so. The locating of a casino would purportedly stem the tide of people traveling from our community and spending their hard-earned dollars elsewhere.
Finally, and perhaps the statement bearing the least amount of credibility on its face was the assertion that the purpose of this initiative was not primarily about “the money.” I say that this statement lacks credibility for several reasons, not the least of which is its proposal in the state’s budget bill.
The Issue at Hand:
So how should a church such as the one I lead feel toward state sanctioned gambling and the locating of a casino in our community? Further, how should I as a pastor (or any follower of Jesus) respond to the potential of this new industry when considering our community’s current economic conditions, the mandate from the Lord to pursue flourishing, and the weightiness of unintended (but predictable) consequences?
Let me say very clearly that there is no direct prohibition to gambling or games of chance in Holy Scripture. I do believe that the Scriptures teach that one should work and work hard to provide for himself and his family (Genesis 3:19, Proverbs 31:27, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, et.al.). The Scriptures do speak of being faithful and accountable managers of resources entrusted by God (Psalm 24:10, Luke 16:1-13), and the traditional understanding of the church would certainly hold that proceeds from employment are God’s resources (Proverbs 3:9, Psalm 50:7-12). However, for one to contrive a rationale for a dogmatic response from these principles would be a bit of an overreach in my opinion. We should not claim for the Bible what it does not claim for itself in wholesale prohibition of gambling.
Furthermore, the legislation of morality is a fool’s errand. Even if it were possible to legislate morality, no one could earn righteousness or favor with God. There is no value as it relates to one’s right standing with God.
Finally, the position of fear is a patently untenable position for a Christian. To build a claim based on a perspective that we are “afraid” of the seediness or crime or loss of property values, etc. is to declare fear as a Christian’s master. Fear is not a gift from God (2 Timothy 1:7). As I recently reminded my church, Abraham lived in Sodom’s neighborhood and Jesus conversed with demons. There is nothing to fear for the follower of Jesus.
One caution for Christians is endeavoring to not baptize preferences as God’s law. Not “wanting” a casino in the community is a reasonable and good desire. I do not want a casino in my city. I see only a moderate potential benefit in economic development and a host of predictable human costs.
Position-
I am speaking as one believer in Jesus. One pastor of one congregation in one city at one moment in time. At the same time, I believe that this position is not only tenable, but is the only true and proper posture for a Christ-follower who is walking in concert with the Holy Spirit.
While our community needs economic development, the choice to bring good jobs is not binary. If the choice is: Bring a casino and employ our neighbors, or leave our neighbors unemployed, then it would be a cruel position to assert that Jesus wished for our neighbors to suffer. There is another option: our elected officials can press toward good jobs that avoid the human costs inherent with proceeds from a casino. It may take longer. It may take additional investment in education, training, infrastructure, and public-private partnerships to do so. As citizens of our community, we should enthusiastically support efforts to do so even if such efforts require additional revenue through taxes. In the matter before us, I believe that this is a more responsible decision. As I have encouraged economic development as part of God’s good design and gift for human flourishing, I applaud the desire of elected officials to bring jobs while urging them to reject less advantageous opportunities for those jobs that will best serve our community.
This issue has been brought forward in a manner that lacks transparency. If it were a good initiative and one that legislators could proudly sign onto, then why bury it in the state budget bill forcing legislators to choose between funding essential services or opposing this initiative? Good and helpful things do not have to be buried in budget bills. I urge our legislators to bring a clean and transparent bill to a vote in both the Senate and the State House and allow every elected official to go on record.
The very nature of this Casino entertainment industry is built on helping people “lose” money. No one truly believes that our city needs more entertainment to overcome our boredom. Since there are no goods exchanged in the gambling practice, all profitability comes at the cost of taking from someone. In fact, teams of engineers, psychologists, and designers worked long and hard at their craft to ensure that someone sitting at a gaming terminal wants to continue to press the “bet” button until all his funds are depleted. I do not disparage an industry for this. It is very clear to any “thinker” who pauses long enough to do so…that the companies controlling the casino want to gather maximum profits and that can only happen if they entice patrons to experience significant loss. I urge our community to stand against such capitalistic opportunism that results in loss to so many of our neighbors.
Other costs to the community also exist. Perhaps some very nice restaurants and retail shopping stores are brought with the casino. Is that an effort to bless our city by the developers? Of course not. It is a move intended to gain market share from other restaurants and stores. The desire for new restaurants will have a direct cost to established local businesses. In a symbiotic relationship evident in the development approach, the restaurants and shops are intended to draw customers who may then visit the casino. The inverse is true as well. I wish my city had more and better options for restaurants. However, I am not willing to harm my neighbors to get them. I will simply continue to drive to Wilson, Raleigh and beyond, or enjoy the present selection of local cuisine.
There are also the inflationary costs to consider. If the casinos pay higher wages, then other businesses in our community will have to raise their wages to compete for workers. The additional costs will be passed on to consumers: those who patronize the casino and those who simply live in its shadow. Someone will have more spending power. I do not believe that person will be the casino worker, the citizen of our community, or other local businesses. That money is headed to an unknown corporate headquarters somewhere; but, it will not reside in North Carolina for very long.
Finally, there is the cost to families. This issue came up at the information meeting I attended. Someone asked an official who would help those who became addicted to gambling. The response was benign and non-committal given the hypothetical nature. I will propose the answer. I will be there on the front lines. My church will be there on the front lines. So will the other churches and pastors of our city. We will be helping families who lack basic resources because someone enticed them to drop twenty more dollars into a machine or at a card table. We will counsel couples through domestic disharmony because of the allure or addiction of gambling that has been introduced in their families. We will be with generations of people who will choose a “job” in this service industry because of good pay in the short-term, when they could have used their God-given abilities to produce something that promoted flourishing. We will be with the grieving families who’s loved one, in a stressed-out moment, hit the blackjack table and began to win a few hands while the drinks flowed…and then got into a car for his last time due to alcohol impairment. Rest assured, the one to help these suffering families will not be the corporations bringing in the profits. The high toll to our citizens demands that we seek better jobs in other arenas that promote flourishing not suffering.
Some say, “live and let live! Who are we to tell people what to do with their money and entertainment.” That is a very libertarian perspective. While I agree that we cannot effectively legislate morality, I will also say that our government seeks to do so all the time. We do not allow people to snort cocaine. We do not sanction brothels. We do not even permit someone to drive their own car without demanding they wear a seat belt (purportedly to save one’s life in an accident when they are incapable of making such a decision to do so on their own). The question is, “Where do you draw the line and who draws it?” I think that question could be answered by principled leadership of elected officials in our government who are accountable at the next election. In such a case, put the initiative up for a clean and public vote. I would humbly and kindly remind every official, there is a God and He sees the heart at its core. Further, He judges every deed and every word. To whom much is entrusted, much is required (Luke 12:48). There are no unaccountable votes.
Additionally, there are no libertarian Christians. Every follower of Jesus rightly has an agenda. It is Jesus’ agenda. With the Apostle Paul, I may gladly agree that everyone has free agency but with my free agency, I am obligated to seek to change the opinions, perspectives, and activities of others…seeking to see them become followers of Jesus as well. I want people to flourish because Jesus wants them to flourish. I want my city to prosper because the Lord wants the people within it to have their needs met in dependence on Him, and He is the One who establishes the government, the city, and the people it serves as an instrument of His sovereign rule.
Some may ask, “Is this the position of Englewood Baptist Church?” I wish the Lord would grant me the ability to speak on behalf of the more than two thousand members of our church. I cannot. Our church family is diverse and may have a diversity of opinions on this matter. At the same time, I will do all within the span of my control to persuade and challenge the followers of Jesus that I shepherd to think and act in concert with this position…while simultaneously seeking to persuade those beyond my church to act consistent with this position as well. It is, in my estimation, the only way to promote true flourishing in a faithful and dependent manner that honors God for His provision above all else.
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:
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.
Dr. Dean has given a gift to the church in this book. As a pastor I was looking for an encouraging resource for the ladies on my ministry team as well as residents and interns. It is difficult to clarify one’s calling regardless of gender…so I can only imagine the difficulty for women in the space of a Baptist church. With grace, strength, and courage, Dr. Dean brings wisdom, theology, and leadership to bear in this resource. It will go on my shelf as a go-to resource for helping ladies discover and clarify their calling to serve the Lord and fulfill His mandate. Thank you Emily Dean.
It is becoming quite trendy to lecture people to see Memorial Day as more than a long weekend, an American “holiday,” and the like. Truthfully, there are many who have perhaps forgotten the why of this solemn occasion.
Memorial Day in the United States is a day of solemn honor. It is a time to remember that the freedoms enjoyed in our nation were perhaps conceived by idealists or politicians and promoted by the pen, but secured by the blood of patriots who died in service to the nation. More than 1.3 million men and women have died in our nation’s battles.
It is also important to remember that the costliest war was the one within…the Civil War. A stark reminder even today that we are, at times, our own great enemy. No foe poses a greater threat from without, but within.
Many of those who oppose the principles of our nation’s freedom relish at the weakness we exhibit at times. An entire cultural narrative exists that leans toward globalist ideology. Remember, this ideal is not new but it has been soundly rejected and the blood of those who prosecuted that resistance still cries…from lands near and far. Their collective voice reminds that the world is safer and more prosperous because of the United States of America.
So, remember. In humility. Of course you can express your opinions and wax eloquent in your own thoughts…but the freedom which allows that to be heard came at a great price. Willingly I might add.
Finally, enjoy the day. Eat barbecue. Be with friends. Rest easy. In doing so, you honor those who paid the price for the freedom to do so. But remember. Always.
I live in the non-profit space. As a pastor in the Baptist tribe, boards are an essential part of our means of organizational accountability. Over more than two decades, I have served on innumerable boards in different contexts. Each one of them important.
In church life (since that is my primary space) boards can have a couple of different compositions. I knew a post-secondary educational institution once where the President told me that he liked to hand select his Board. Over decades of leading his institution, he had learned that if he could shape the Board, then he had “more fun” at meetings and met limited resistance. I have also served on Boards that had “that guy” (or perhaps two of them) who made the experience feel like the Salem witch trials or testifying before Congress! These zealous Board members would dig into the most minute details like forensic investigators…or just use their allotted time to “set up” their question, giving their leader only moments to reply with a Yes or No answer. Can I just say…the world needs less speeches.
I am also painfully aware and a bit embarrassed when news breaks about some failure in an institution and the public cries foul and demands that “someone” do something! The implication is almost always that the Board system has failed so there needs to be some higher accountability to appeal to. In some cases, the Board has failed; however, this does not mean the system is bad, only that the Board did not do its job. Boards work…when they do.
Being an effective Board is work. No one serves a greater purpose by rubber stamping their executive or principal leader. When Boards work, they are a source of confidence for the general people, a source of accountability for the organization, and a source of encouragement for the principal.
The Board as a Source of Confidence
One of the most profound leadership stories in the Scriptures is of Nehemiah. He had a moment of enlightenment and inspiration from the Lord. He had authority from the king to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Even with these things, he had a task to accomplish and would need to lead people to undertake it. The people did not know him and, I believe, would have been less than excited to hear that this stranger would not lead them astray in his call to rebuild a wall in an occupied nation (tantamount to a declaration of rebellion). However, when Nehemiah had developed the plan, he sought out leaders that the people did know, that the already trusted and led them, that they might lead their people.
Nehemiah 2:17–18 (NASB95)
17Then I said to them, “You see the bad situation we are in, that Jerusalem is desolate and its gates burned by fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach.”
18I told them how the hand of my God had been favorable to me and also about the king’s words which he had spoken to me. Then they said, “Let us arise and build.” So they put their hands to the good work.
In a contemporary application, the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) is structured with its entities functioning as independent and autonomous organizations. They are only accountable to their Boards which are selected by the representatives (Messengers) of the Convention churches in a two-day meeting every year. Individual churches and church members have no direct controlling interest in these entities. They cannot demand policies or processes reflect some novel, even if amazing idea. However, Boards absolutely can and must. The “people” place their trust in these Boards to oversee the people’s interests. This provides confidence for the people, knowing that the Board is overseeing the work. Boards work…when they do. It should also probably be said that Boards can be a source of consternation for some people, those vested and otherwise in the organization. Our culture has become accustomed to populist thinking and protest influenced. If you have a big enough megaphone or can motivate a crowd you can accomplish a lot in our current cultural context. You SHOULD NOT be able to redirect a working Board. The Board is the source of confidence, and a good Board can only be that source when it has the resolve to lead. It should listen to voices, but they are not a constituency. Boards are often not representative democracies. They are leaders, with judgment, that will make decisions in the best interest of the organization and greater community and influence principal leaders to carry out that task. Boards work…when they do.
The Board as a Source of Accountability
Boards provide necessary accountability to an organization. Lord Acton reminds, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”[i] Every leader needs accountability to keep from going “off the rails.” A rubber-stamping board is more akin to a group of friends at a barbecue or a doctor that fills requested prescriptions without ever taking a patient’s vitals. If my doctor gave me what I often wanted, I would have a prescription in hand for steak three meals a day and a note exempting me from exercise. He or she would also not be a very good doctor. A working Board asks important questions in the right spirit. It does not get into the weedy details of purchase requests for office supplies. That’s the work of the principal leader. If the Board is required to micromanage each minute detail of the operation, the executive is unnecessary. However, the Board should not just see itself as the nodding and smiling affirmer of everything the executive introduces. The Board discerns if the initiatives lead toward accomplishing organizational objectives or represent sideways energy. The Board looks at potential hotspots of contention such as financial propriety. This gives accountability to the people and offers protection for the principal leader, guarding both. The Board is the failsafe of the organization.
The principal of accountability can be seen throughout Scripture, but none so clear as the interactions of the Apostle Paul with the church at Antioch and Jerusalem. In matters of doctrine, we see Paul pleading his case before the church elders (think Board) in Acts 15:1-29. We also see a demonstrated accountability to the church that sent Paul on his missionary endeavors as he returned to report all that had occurred during his mission.
Acts 14:26–28 (NASB95)
26From there they sailed to Antioch, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished.
27When they had arrived and gathered the church together, they began to report all things that God had done with them and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.
28And they spent a long time with the disciples.
Great leaders recognize the siren song of unchecked power. They seek to guard their own reputation and effectiveness in such a way that they invite appropriate accountability. Great leaders need working Boards because Boards work…when they do.
Leading is not for wimps. Leadership requires building relationships and making decisions that may place those relationships in jeopardy. Still, an executive has a fiduciary responsibility to fulfill the task of leading an organization to accomplish its stated mission. Any other accomplishment, no matter how lofty, is a poor substitute for fidelity to mission. This is HARD WORK. There are times as a principal leader (the Senior Pastor of a dynamic pastoral team) that I must throttle back on the creativity of my fellow pastors. These are my brothers. They are my equals in calling and value and often are more gifted in many of the functions of shepherding a church than I am. Still, I must disappoint them at times to faithfully discharge my duties. I also must “coach up” members of the team from time to time. They may have gotten trapped in the rough, giving undue attention to sideways energy. They may be fatigued or be sensing a calling to a new field of ministry. They may not be getting it done. Confronting and calling for change in their areas of ministry in one of my responsibilities. To faithfully fulfill my ministry, I must do this. And it is hard. This is only dealing with the relational dynamic which is one of many pressures on an executive. There is financial pressure, cultural perspective, spiritual health, internal desires- good and bad, and a plethora of other tensions to leading. But this is what leadership is…leading! If a leader grows weary or loses his passion to lead in these things, he should “hang up his spurs” and go sell ice cream. Everyone loves the ice cream guy!
One other pressure is that of a desire to avoid failure. In more than twenty years of pastoring people, and over thirty years of leading in varying contexts, it seems that the margin for error has grown increasingly thin. With public criticism of social media alone, it only takes one missed step on an initiative to feel like you were just lost the world series on a bad pitch. Competition has always been tough in every industry, but it seems that the increased rate of change and increased noise levels of keyboard critics can end a career or stifle effectiveness like never before. This can cause, among many leaders, a paralysis of analysis. The leader doesn’t want to make a bad decision, so he withholds making good ones also. This abdication of responsibility is unacceptable even if increasingly common.
Under these pressures a Board can be a great source of encouragement. First, they can be a source of affirmation. Sometimes you just need people to tell you that you did well even if it was a wild pitch that cost a single game. One game is often not the entire season. Additionally, a qualified and working Board can help check initiatives in their own hearts. The writer of Proverbs says this about wise counselors:
Proverbs 15:22 (NASB95)
22Without consultation, plans are frustrated, but with many counselors they succeed.
Principal leaders should rightly see a Board as an asset to help them execute at a higher level. God said it works that way. Put qualified and called people on a Board and let them be the source of help to execute better. Many of them have led at high levels, even if in other industries. Leadership has many common characteristics. If they fulfill their task, these Board members will be an invaluable source of encourage to the executive. Good leaders know that they are not the absolute best at all areas. In fact, a great Army General who prosecuted our nation’s agenda in war once said to a group of junior leaders that I was in, “You don’t have to be the smartest person in the room. Just surround yourself with them.” This level of self-awareness and fidelity to mission is what made this General legendary in his leadership. Boards are often that source of wisdom. Trust them as a help and do not view them as a hindrance. Boards work…when they do.
Concluding thoughts
If you are a member of a Board…do your job. People count on you. You are what gives confidence to the system. Sometimes I will return from a long Board meeting and my wife will ask if we did anything great. Often it is hard to say yes when it seems I only listened to an abundance of presentations and reviewed a plethora of spreadsheets. But, when properly understood, the answer is always yes! I often reply, “We made a difference in the sense that if we were not there, the system would fall apart because the people (or for you: shareholders, stakeholders, and participants) count on us to make sure the organization is progressing.
If you are responsible for selecting a Board, do not simply look for a pulse and consider filling a spot to be a victory. Boards are not primarily about identity representation. They are not about prestige. They are not quarterly junk-its and resume bullets. Boards are confidence builders, accountability providers, and sources of encouragement. Fill spots with these people. Then trust the people you placed in those spots.
If you are an executive, do not miss the opportunity to become better. Don’t try to stack the Board with your people. You are cutting off your own feet. Embrace the accountability. Everyone flosses their teeth better when you have an upcoming dental appointment. Everyone checks the scales when they know summer bathing suit weather is coming. Every leader leads better when he knows that the Board will ask.
Finally, trust the Board and ignore the clamor for popular accountability. The masses of people will always be curious. They will always have opinions. Boards are leaders. They are not the primary leader by design; however, they must lead. So, lead. And encourage. Have your executive’s back. Call him to account in private and leave it there or make a summary statement to the public that encourages confidence and encourages the executive that every missed pitch doesn’t make the five o’clock news. That kind of pressure can rattle even the best leaders.
Recent Comments