It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. Associated Baptist Press reports that a state Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is now offering financial incentives in order to encourage pulpit search committees to consider women candidates.
According to the report, “The CBF of Missouri offered Sept. 17 to pay interview, travel and other expenses incurred by search committees willing to ‘include a woman candidate in the process … treating her as a top candidate even if she isn’t actually one of the top candidates,’ CBFMO Associate Coordinator Jeff Langford explained in a handout distributed at a Coordinating Council meeting at Memorial Baptist Church in Columbia, Mo.”
No, I am not making this up. Langford added: “Even if the church isn’t ready, the search committee may discover a remarkable candidate along the way that changes their perspective, either for the current search or for a future one.”
The motivation for the concept is clear — those who are offering these incentives are frustrated that few churches are calling women as senior pastors. According to the ABP report, the idea to offer financial incentives came out of a meeting in which several other ideas were also offered. This is the idea that made headlines.
Though the CBF promotes women as pastors, a 2005 study indicated that few of its own churches had called, or had even considered calling, a woman as pastor. The authors of that study stated their findings in clear terms:
Never before have so many Baptist women officially served as pastors and co-pastors, and yet statistically the great majority of Baptist churches affiliated with the Alliance, BGAV, BGCT, and CBF have not called women to serve as pastor.
Even within the ranks of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, where the leadership sincerely supports women as senior pastors, their churches are still very unlikely to call a woman as pastor. There are a few highly visible women who do serve in senior pastor positions, but they are rare exceptions to the general rule.
My point is not to accuse the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship or its leadership of hypocrisy, for there is no reason to question the sincerity of their beliefs. I believe that their convictions are wrong, not that their stance is insincere. Indeed, their frustration at the slow pace of change in this regard seems authentic — thus this new policy in Missouri.
And yet, the policy does seem clumsy, at best. Paying search committees to consider women as top candidates? That is awkward enough. But, paying them to treat a woman “as a top candidate even if she isn’t actually one of the top candidates”? That seems absolutely desperate, and one can only wonder if women seeking pastorates would consider this a step forward.
Kathy Pickett, moderator-elect of the Missouri CBF and pastor of congregational life at Holmeswood Baptist Church in Kansas City, voiced her own concerns that women might be harmed by the proposal. She was especially concerned about young women graduating from seminaries, who might be misled by the policy. “There is a hopefulness that something is going to change when it likely isn’t going to,” she said.
The Missouri proposal, though hard to believe at first glance, is also deeply revealing. Those who believe that women should be senior pastors believe that the slow progress toward the acceptance of female pastors is rooted in enduring prejudice against women. Those of us who believe that the Bible precludes women from serving as pastors, on the other hand, believe that this pattern reveals the endurance of a biblical instinct, even among those who believe, at some level, that women should be pastors.
The theological distance between the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Southern Baptist Convention continues to grow. This development out of Missouri makes that point in an unmistakable way. It will not be the last development to do so.
____________________________________
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler
Vicki Brown, “CBFMO Offers Incentive for Churches to Consider Women as Pastors,” Associated Baptist Press, Tuesday, September 27, 2011.
Southern Baptist Convention president Bryant Wright has launched an effort to change the name of the Convention, or at least to give the issue serious consideration. He announced this intention as he presented his report to the SBC Executive Committee last night. Instantly, energy filled the room.
The idea of changing the name of the Southern Baptist Convention is not new. Convention committees and task forces of the past had considered the question, and the Convention voted not to consider the question in 2004, when Dallas pastor Jack Graham, then the Convention’s president, proposed a similar process.
Bryant Wright made his announcement after speaking of the energy and unity within the Convention after the SBC annual meeting this past June in Phoenix. A consideration of the name change, he said, would be “another move forward” for the Convention.
The question of the SBC’s name and possible alternatives emerged soon after World War II, when Southern Baptist leaders recognized that the Convention was no longer satisfied to contain its witness within the historic southern and southwestern states of the United States. Nevertheless, the Convention’s messengers have never faced any formal proposal for an alternative.
Clearly, changing the name of the SBC will not be easy. There is tremendous value in the established name and reputation of the Southern Baptist Convention, especially when the denomination has put itself on the line again and again in defense of biblical truth and theological orthodoxy. The name emerged from a historical context that is central to the denomination’s history and identity. Of course, the Convention’s population distribution is still mightily weighted by concentrations in the South and Southwest.
There may be significant legal and economic factors to consider, especially when the SBC’s founding was almost 170 years ago. The legal name of the Southern Baptist Convention is woven throughout SBC life — not to mention its 40,000 member churches. This would be no simple re-branding effort. Much is at stake.
What international implications might a name change hold? Those must be considered. In a global context, “southern” does not imply the American meaning. So, what does it imply? That question must be asked. How much international recognition might be lost by changing the name?
On the other hand, there are powerful reasons to consider changing the name. The SBC is not driven by a southern agenda nor a southern vision, but by a passionate commitment to the Great Commission. In the context of the United States, “southern” refers to a region. That region gave birth to the Southern Baptist Convention, but it no longer contains it. To many in regions like New England and the Pacific Northwest, the “Southern Baptist Convention” sounds strange, if not foreign. On the other hand, how much does this really mean anymore?
Furthermore, there is a legacy with which we must continue to deal. We were established as an association of churches that would appoint slaveholders as missionaries. There is so much to celebrate in the heritage of our beloved denomination, but there is also a deep stain that is associated with slavery, the nation’s sectional division prior to and during the Civil War, and the legacy of racism. If these issues can be resolved, even to any significant degree, by a name change, a Gospel-minded people would never hesitate to consider such a proposal.
Many church planters and mission strategists have openly called for a name change and have celebrated the call for a study and proposal. Many influential pastors and denominational leaders have joined in support — but at this point the support is for an ordered process of asking the question, and this is healthy and responsible. No Gospel-driven movement of churches would want to retain any preventable barrier to faithful and effective evangelistic and church planting efforts.
Bryant Wright is not alone in believing that now is the time for the SBC to consider this question in a serious and timely manner, driven by a sense of evangelistic and missiological urgency. Those members of the SBC Executive Committee who spoke against the idea on Monday night are not alone in their concern about what might be lost by such a name change, as well as what might be gained.
The discussion on Monday night was not the finest hour for the SBC Executive Committee, nor its worst. It was a sign that this is a highly-charged issue that holds great potential to divide the Convention if not handled well and responsibly. The task force must act in a way that unifies Southern Baptists and helps us all to gain a much-needed understanding of what is and is not at stake.
I have known nothing but the Southern Baptist Convention in terms of my own personal identity for the entirety of my lifetime, now over the half-century mark. For almost twenty years, I have had the privilege of serving as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
To be honest, I am personally traumatized by the very idea of changing the denomination’s name. I feel an almost physical loss at the very prospect. It is a deeply and unavoidably emotional question for any Southern Baptist whose life is intertwined with the Convention, its work, and its churches.
At the same time, our commitment to the Great Commission and the urgency of the Gospel must exceed our emotional attachments and fears. A responsible movement of Gospel churches — of Baptist churches — must be ready to ask this question and face it fearlessly. We can and will do this together.
President Wright appointed a task force to be led by SBC elder statesman Jimmy Draper, a former SBC president, beloved pastor, and former president of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention. I, along with several others, have agreed to serve on this task force. This is not a task force that is poised to make an irresponsible or precipitous proposal. There is much hard work ahead.
This decision will not be made by any task force. The name of the Convention belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention and will ultimately be settled by its messengers. The Convention has shown great wisdom and strength of character and conviction in its past. We must trust that it will rise to that same wisdom and strength in the present hour.
During the discussion Monday night, President Wright demonstrated a strength of character that served the denomination well. Those who spoke to the issue with such passion and concern sent a clear and honest signal of how difficult the task may be. Family discussions are often difficult, but this is what healthy families do — they work through the challenges rather than run from them.
There are good arguments to be made on both sides of this question — so let’s make them. There are important questions to ask — so let’s ask them. There are emotional issues that pull at our hearts — so let’s talk about them. There are generations of the past to whom we owe so much and a generation of those now living we desperately want to reach — so let’s bridge them. There are legal and financial issues to consider — so let’s consider them. There are so many Southern Baptists from which we need to hear — so let’s listen to them.
Most importantly, there is a world desperately in need of the Gospel of Jesus Christ — so we must not allow this question to divert our energies from the Great Commission task. It will not matter what we call ourselves if we lose sight of the one great cause that has brought us together.
__________________________________
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler
“Wright Announces Task Force to Study Possible SBC Name Change,” Baptist Press, Monday, September 19, 2011.
We came. We met. We went home. In one sense, the Southern Baptist Convention is like a large family reunion, complete with colorful cousins. The 2011 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention made history, but it may take some time to measure the full consequence of the meeting.
Some thoughts:
1. The fact that just over 4,800 messengers registered, the 2011 convention is the lowest-attended in 67 years. That fact might be explained by any number of factors, but it is not good news. Phoenix was a most friendly host city, and it was good for Southern Baptists to be reminded of the work of the denomination and its churches in the West, but the city is not well placed for a large drive-in registration. Furthermore, the 2011 convention was not expected to be a contested presidential election year, nor did any matter of great controversy serve to attract messengers. Still, such a low registration is not an encouraging sign.
2. The presidential leadership of Bryant Wright produced a warm and healthy spirit to the convention sessions, and his focus on unreached and unengaged people groups brought a needed Great Commission vision to the entire convention. Southern Baptists appreciated his demeanor, fairness, and character.
3. The convention welcomed three new leaders to present their first reports — an unprecedented development. Frank Page brought his first report as President of the SBC Executive Committee, stressing the need for unity and selflessness. He invited other SBC leaders to join with him in affirming “Affirmation of Unity and Cooperation,” a statement of common purpose. He called other SBC leaders to stand with him on the platform in a public display of unity. The action was symbolic, of course, but it served as a helpful sign of Page’s leadership style and commitment to unity among SBC leaders. Never disparage a display of honest unity.
4. The mission board reports were truly inspiring. Tom Elliff was in full enthusiasm as the new president of the International Mission Board. Holding a commissioning service as part of the IMB report was really inspiring, as was the call for each Southern Baptist church and entity to “adopt” one of the more than 3,800 unengaged people groups. Kevin Ezell broke all precedents in bringing his first report as president of the North American Mission Board. He spoke with a much-needed honesty about the need to redirect the agency he leads and he spoke with bracing candor about the need for Southern Baptists to plant real Baptist congregations that reproduce. His report was a display of courage and trust in the convention and its churches.
5. The ethnic diversity statement recommended by the Executive Committee was both right and important. The action included ten very specific steps that are “designed to foster conscious awareness of the need to be proactive and intentional in the inclusion of individuals from all ethnic and racial identities within Southern Baptist life.” The points were clear, bold, and necessary. Our Creator takes ethnicity, language, and culture seriously — even describing the assembly of heaven in these terms. Our nation is becoming more ethnically diverse by the day. The Southern Baptist Convention must do the same, lest we become a mere enclave that looks like the America of the past, rather than of the present and the future.
6. The Committee on Resolutions, led by South Carolina pastor Paul Jimenez, brought a brave report that included a resolution on immigration — an issue that was sure to attract discussion. The resolution produced the most intensive and controversial debate of the entire convention. In the end, the resolution was adopted, calling for the nation “to implement, with the borders secured, a just and compassionate path to legal status, with appropriate restitutionary measures, for those undocumented immigrants already living in our country.” More importantly, the resolution emphasized the Great Commission and Gospel priorities of the Southern Baptist Convention’s churches in addressing the millions of immigrants that now represent such a large and growing evangelistic challenge.
7. The convention also adopted–overwhelmingly–a resolution on the New International Version of the Bible [NIV]. This resolution, which “expressed profound disappointment” with the recent revision of the NIV, did not come from the committee, but from a messenger who appealed to the convention for his resolution to be considered. In not bringing the resolution to the convention, the committee was following established precedent, whereby the convention does not repeat previous actions. In 2002, the convention adopted a strongly-worded resolution against a previous revision of the NIV known as the TNIV. The committee did its job well.
The NIV resolution demonstrated both the glory and the risk of our democratic system. The glory was seen in the fact that the resolution clearly expressed the concerns held by the overwhelming majority of messengers present. The SBC sent a clear message of its proper and valid concerns — and a message that will be heard far and wide.
The risk is also evident in the fact that the concerns expressed about the NIV would apply in equal or even greater terms to several other modern translations as well. Russell Moore, a member of the committee, expressed this fact clearly when he told messengers that the NIV is “just one of many Bibles out there [with] similar language.”
The risk involved in adopting a resolution right from the floor of the convention was also revealed in the fact that the statement called for LifeWay to discontinue sales of the NIV in its stores. As a matter of established precedent, convention messengers do not send messages or directives directly to the entities of the SBC. The resolution couched the language in terms of a respectful “request,” but the action represents a very difficult challenge for LifeWay and its leadership. Removing the NIV from LifeWay stores is no easy matter. Just consider that the New American Commentary series, encouraged by direct action of the SBC in the 1980s, is based upon the NIV translation. This series was intended to showcase conservative SBC scholarship. Is LifeWay now to remove its own prize product? There is no way that the series can be shifted to another modern translation without rewriting every volume. The NAC is but one example of the quandary now set before LifeWay, but the larger issue is moral — consistency. How can LifeWay justify removing the NIV and leave even more problematic translations on its shelves? Many of those translations are also deeply invested in the very study and devotional materials that Southern Baptist churches demand and desire.
In the end, Southern Baptists will have to trust that LifeWay will be faithful to its charge and stewardship from the Southern Baptist Convention. We should all pray that LifeWay president Thom Rainer and the LifeWay board will be granted wisdom to know how best to serve the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention in light of this resolution.
In the end, I think it is healthy and good that the SBC sent such a strong signal through this resolution. I only wish that the resolution would have avoided some of the difficulties it now creates on the way to making its main point.
8. There were the moments of unpredictability, proving that Southern Baptists bring some colorful relatives to the family reunion. Wiley Drake nominated himself as President of the SBC, receiving 122 votes (presumably one of them his own). This recalled the self-nomination offered by evangelist Anis Shorrosh at the 1988 SBC in San Antonio. Shorrosh nominated “our dear friend” … himself. Questions and responses during entity reports (including my own report for Southern Seminary) offered moments of unpredictable energy.
9. In the end, the Phoenix convention reminded Southern Baptists that we are facing a huge season of generational transition. This will almost surely be the greatest test the SBC will face in coming years. Will we handle this well? The road from Phoenix to the future will answer that question.
__________________________________
I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler
Photo credit: Baptist Press, 2011.