I was disappointed by the Southern Baptist Convention voting once again that a church with women pastors was “not in friendly cooperation” with Southern Baptists.  The church in question this year (First Baptist of Alexandria, Virginia) has several pastors, including a female “Pastor for Women and Children” and a male “Senior Pastor.”  The church was on record saying they would consider a female senior pastor, though they had never done so. 

I have three questions for Southern Baptists to consider.  First, is our stance on male-only pastors as clear-cut as we claim that it is?  Secondly, are we abandoning our belief in church autonomy?  And, thirdly, are we changing our understanding on “Statements of Faith” and beginning to use them as a creed?

I will deal with these three issues independently, though there is admittedly some overlap.

First, let’s look at what the Bible teaches about women in leadership.  Male leadership is clearly the norm In both the Old and New Testaments, but you do find women in leadership. 

In the Old Testament, Miriam is called (Exodus 15:20) a prophet.  In Judges 4:4, Deborah is called a prophet and was leading (or “judging”) Israel in her day.  2 Kings 22 tells of the finding of the Book of the Law and how the priests were sent to Huldah (a female prophet) who spoke to them from the Lord.  This is not an exhaustive list (the Jewish Talmud lists seven Jewish “prophetesses”), but it shows a pattern.  The Hebrews were a patriarchal society, but it was not unusual for women to lead and speak for the Lord.  They received the same respect as male leaders. 

There is a similar pattern in the New Testament.  Male leadership is the norm, but it was not an exclusive pattern. 

For example, the twelve disciples were all men, but Jesus appeared first to women after the resurrection.  They were the first eyewitnesses who shared “HE IS ALIVE.”   In Acts and the epistles, we see many women in church leadership.  Acts 18 tells the story of Priscilla and Aquila, who invited Apollos to their home and instructed him.  Priscilla’s name comes first—she was clearly a teacher and not just the wife of a teacher.  Acts 21:8-9 says that Philip (one of the seven and an evangelist) had four daughters who were prophetesses.  Phoebe (Acts 16:1) was a deaconess.  As a matter of fact, when you look at the various coworkers that Paul mentions in his epistles, fully one fourth of them are women. 

Paul does, in I Timothy 2 and 3, teach that pastors are men, but these verses are only part of the Biblical teaching.  We don’t get our doctrine from just one or two passages.  We do our best to combine all Biblical teaching into a big picture.  The big picture shows that male leadership was the norm in Paul’s day, but leadership was not exclusively male.    

This is how we deal with other hot-topic issues mentioned by Paul.  In Titus 2:9, Paul says, “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything,” but we don’t advocate human slavery today.  We look at the overall teaching in the Bible on human freedom and equality. Therefore, we applaud the progress made in freeing slaves and treating all men as equals.  We must do the same with women in leadership. 

Ironically, the two most famous leaders in Southern Baptist life are women—Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong.  As in Biblical times, male leadership has been the norm in Southern Baptist life, but strong women leaders were also recognized.  (At the time, both received heavy criticism from the predominately male leadership of the SBC.  Today, they are widely admired.)   

I am not in this blog advocating for or against women pastors, though I am advocating for allowing women to serve in important positions of leadership. I am pointing out that there is more than one way for Biblical conservatives (who believe the Bible is true) to see this issue.  I definitely am advocating grace in the way we look at others who disagree with us on issues like this. 

Full disclosure:  Our church (Avondale Baptist Church of Avondale, Arizona) does not have women pastors.  We have a male senior pastor.  We have had many female staff members leading children, women, youth, and worship ministry, though we never called them “pastors.”  We have women deacons.  Our practice differs from First Baptist Church of Alexandria, but I have no desire to exclude them.  We do not have to agree with them on all particulars to cooperate with them.  There is room for differences of opinion on issues like this one. 

I know that the Southern Baptist Convention is an autonomous organization and has the right to include or exclude churches as they see fit.  But having the right to exclude a church does not mean it is right to do so—and I believe that we erred in these and similar cases.

My second question for Southern Baptists is this, “Are we abandoning our belief in church autonomy?”  We have always believed that individual churches are responsible directly to God.  No outside authority has the right to tell us how to operate.  Each church seeks God and is responsible directly to Him.  We are not a centralized denomination like Roman Catholics or Methodists.  We are a loose affiliation of cooperating churches who work together to do things that no one church can do effectively—primarily mission work. 

Therefore, we understand that we will operate and think differently on secondary issues.  On primary issues we agree—there is one God, Jesus is God’s Son, salvation is by faith in Jesus—but on secondary issues, we are free to disagree.  Primary issues (I call them “gospel issues”) are essential enough to lead to a lack of cooperation, for we can’t do “missions” together if we don’t agree on what gospel our missionaries share.  But on secondary issues, we have allowed the grace of church autonomy to prevail. 

The third question is related.  Are we now using the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) as a creed?  Historically, Baptists saw a significant difference between a “statement of faith” and a “creed.”  A “creed” is a permanent and enforceable statement of our doctrines—believe these things or we consider you to be outside of our faith.  A “Statement of Faith” is a published statement saying that this group of people (an example being SBC messengers in 1925 or 1963 or 2000) believe these truths.  The BFM is an important document and a summary of our beliefs—but it does not have the force of a creed.  We have long said that Baptists have no creed but the Bible.  The Bible is our ultimate statement of faith. 

Some Baptists now say that there is no discernible difference between a statement of faith and a creed.  I strongly disagree.  Historically, Baptists have insisted that they are different. 

Unfortunately, the preamble to the BFM is not always published—but it should be.  I encourage Southern Baptists to read the preamble to our Statements of Faith.  Here are a few excerpts from the 1963 preamble about statements of faith and confessions, which was quoted in full in the 2000 preamble:    

“We do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility.”

“Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.”

“They are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.”

The BFM is not a creed, but we are using it as such—believe this, sign this, agree in all particulars—or you are not one of us nor are you in friendly cooperation with us. 

I believe that we acted incorrectly in voting that the First Baptist Church of Alexandria was no longer in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention.  I encourage us to use more grace—and less legalism—in the future.