CELEBRATION
As is always the case, there is so much to celebrate from this year’s meeting that I could hardly take the time or space to describe it all. Here is just a sampling:

IMB Sending Celebration
The IMB Sending Celebration is always a highlight of the annual meeting, and every Southern Baptist should experience it at least once. This year, 58 new missionaries were commissioned to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations.

Because many of these missionaries are heading to regions that are hostile to the gospel, most cannot have their identities publicly revealed for security reasons. Still, the messengers are given the privilege of hearing a brief bio and then praying over their specific requests as they are sent out. This is a beautiful picture of what Southern Baptists can accomplish through cooperation: faithfulness to the Great Commission and support for those who give up everything to go.

Additionally, Dr. Paul Chitwood, president of the International Mission Board, reported that 1,600 missionaries are currently in the pipeline, awaiting deployment – a number significantly higher than just a few years ago. Dr. Chitwood is a man of deep integrity and sincere devotion to Christ. I am grateful for his leadership at the IMB.

Resolutions
Every year at the Annual Meeting, messengers vote on a slate of resolutions presented by the Resolutions Committee. These are non-binding statements, but offer a general consensus on what Southern Baptists belief about a host of cultural and theological issues. This year, messengers adopted 8 resolutions, including banning pornography, reversing the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, standing against chemical abortion pills, and the predatory nature of sports betting.

The Resolutions Committee was chaired by Dr. Andrew Walker, who spoke a few years ago at the GBC Adam Hyatt Lectures for Critical Christian Thinking. His knowledge of the issues and communication from the platform was done exceedingly well. The resolutions were “exceptionally conservative” and yet passed overwhelmingly with little debate. Concerning this, Walker said, “Anyone who saw the actual votes themselves saw that these were not really close votes by any stretch. They were passed with, I think, basically unanimous support, which I think is a healthy reflection where the theological consensus is of the SBC. So, I was very pleased with what transpired today.”

Anniversaries
Messengers recognized and celebrated two important anniversaries: the 100th anniversary of the Baptist Faith & Message and the 100th Anniversary of the Cooperative Program. Since its inception in 1925, the Cooperative Program has facilitated the investment of over $20 billion toward Great Commission efforts. In a resolution entitled “On the Centennial Anniversary of the Cooperative Program”, messengers affirmed the Cooperative Program as “a missions-funding strategy God has blessed to support and strengthen Southern Baptist efforts to share the Gospel throughout the world.”

Likewise, the Baptist Faith & Message had its own resolution, reminding Southern Baptists that the BFM2000 is “a faithful summary of biblical doctrine in the Baptist tradition and commends this confession as consistent with the broader stream of historic Christian orthodoxy as articulated in the early creeds of the church.”

Baptisms
In 2024, Southern Baptists baptized more converts than in any of the previous seven years. The total number of baptisms was 250,643 – an increase of over 10% from 2023 and the highest total since 2014. Many state conventions saw staggering percentage increases. For example, the Wyoming Southern Baptist Convention saw a 63.7% increase. The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention saw a 45% increase. And the Baptist Convention of New York saw a 38% increase. Praise the Lord for these encouraging numbers!

CONSIDERATION
This year’s Annual Meeting presented three somewhat controversial issues for messengers to consider and decide:

1. A motion to abolish the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). This is one of the entities of the SBC.
2. An attempt to secure 990-type financial transparency from our various entities.
3. A return of the “Law Amendment” motion seeking to add a constitutional amendment that requires churches to only affirm or hire men as pastors.

ERLC Vote
Over the past several years, various motions have been made to defund or abolish the ERLC. The reasons are multi-faceted, but many concerns stem from decisions made during Russell Moore’s presidency (2013–2021), which left a portion of the SBC unsettled. Additionally, some continue to question the current direction of the ERLC under President Brent Leatherwood. At last year’s meeting, an unexpectedly large number of messengers voted in favor of abolishing the ERLC, though the motion ultimately failed. This year, a similar motion was presented, and the results were nearly identical: 57% voted against abolishment, while 43% voted in favor.

I voted against abolishing the ERLC because I believe it represents a vital aspect of what it means to be Baptist. First, religious liberty remains a foundational and indispensable cause for Baptists, one that has defined our identity from the very beginning. Second, we are living in a time when it is more important than ever to have Baptistic convictions and principles clearly articulated in Washington. Surely now is not the time to abandon our post!

I agree that the ERLC has made some questionable decisions and published some concerning content in recent years. Like all of our entities, it must remain attentive to the voice of Southern Baptists and be willing to make course corrections when needed. However, reform is quite different from abolishment.

To be fair, some who supported the motion to abolish expressed that their goal was not necessarily to eliminate the ERLC but to send a strong and unmistakable message – that significant change is needed. Because abolishing an entity requires a second vote at the following Annual Meeting, their hope was that the ERLC would demonstrate a clear shift in direction over the next year, such that messengers would no longer feel the need to vote for abolition in 2025.

I appreciate that sentiment, but I’m opposed to that approach. I don’t want to abolish, I want to improve. So, I cannot in good conscience vote for one thing while simultaneously hoping that very thing doesn’t actually happen. I was pleased with the result of the vote. However, Brent Leatherwood and the ERLC staff need to understand that 43% of messengers voted to abolish. That means the ERLC needs to listen more intently to what Southern Baptists are saying.

Financial Transparency
In recent years, financial transparency and accountability have become major concerns for many messengers, driven in part by reports of unwise spending decisions and ongoing questions primarily related to the North American Mission Board (NAMB).

For the third consecutive year, a motion was introduced calling for SBC entities to either complete an IRS Form 990 or provide all the equivalent information typically included in that form. The goal is to give messengers a clear view of how funds are being used across our entities, including details such as salaries and other expenditures.

Dr. Jeff Iorg, president of the SBC Executive Committee, spoke against the motion. He asked for messengers to approve the Business and Financial Plan as written without any amendments for increased transparency. Iorg said, “We have First Amendment protections from such invasive reporting as is required by the 990. We stand on that today and assure you that we are not trying to hide behind that ruling but we are instead defending that ruling and upholding that ruling and wanting to stand within it.”

Iorg reminded the messengers that the SBC is built on the trustee system, and that financial transparency and accountability are happening at the trustee level. He said, “You already elect over 500 of your fellow Southern Baptists as trustees to maintain the accountability of the finances of this convention, and there is no outcry from the trustees who have this information; no one is claiming from their groups that this information needs to be released because it’s inappropriate and only been hidden for wrong reasons.”

The motion to amend the Business and Financial Report for 990-level transparency failed. On this issue, Southern Baptists were more persuaded by Dr. Iorg’s comments as President of the Executive Committee than by the concerns raised on the floor. I followed Dr. Iorg’s advice in my vote because I trust our system and the trustees we elect.

Speaking of which, the process for electing trustees to an SBC entity is a thorough one. Our Committee on Committees nominates the Committee on Nominations, and messengers approve those nominations. Then, the Committee on Nominations nominates the trustees, and messengers approve those nominations as well. In other words, Southern Baptist trustees are chosen by Southern Baptists after being nominated by a group of Southern Baptists who were themselves nominated by a group of Southern Baptists!

Law/Sanchez Amendment
A motion to approve the “Law Amendment” returned this year after being defeated by messengers last year in Indianapolis. The motion was brought forward by messenger Juan Sanchez. This amendment sought to add a sixth identifier to Article III, subparagraph I of the SBC Constitution and By-Laws, stating that a church is only in friendly cooperation with the SBC if it “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”

The motion failed to reach the required supermajority of 66%.

As was the case last year, the reason for the failure has nothing to do with the commitment of Southern Baptists to complementarianism. Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 describes the two offices of the church – pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. It also says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” So, if Southern Baptists are convictionally committed to only men as pastors, why did the motion fail?

I think for two reasons. First, there are still many who believe that our statement of faith is sufficient to handle the issue of women pastors in our churches. Since our Constitution already says that a church must “closely identity” with the BFM2000 to be in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC, some do not see a need to keep adding identifiers in our governing documents. That was my position last year, and I still remain concerned that future issues will cause messengers to want additional identifiers in our governing documents that are already plainly stated in our statement of faith.

Second, Dr. Iorg also spoke against the motion from the platform, warning against legal battles that might ensue if we “take the issue out of the hands of theologians and pastors and put it in the hands of attorneys.” This time, I found Dr. Iorg’s commentary to be unconvincing. If legal battles were the concern, then why do we have any identifiers at all?

Thus, I reversed my vote from last year and voted in favor of the amendment this year. A significant reason for the change in my vote was due to the inaction of the Credentials Committee concerning NewSpring Church this past February. NewSpring is openly egalitarian with a female teaching pastor who regularly preaches. For reasons that baffled most Southern Baptists, the Credentials Committee maintained that NewSpring closely identified with our BFM2000. It was a mistake and caused many messengers, like myself, to rethink their vote.

Now that the motion has failed, we still have work to do in clarifying for the Credentials Committee what the Convention expects of them. I continue to believe that our statement of faith is sufficient – provided the Credentials Committee applies it consistently. Only time will tell.

What a privilege to be a part of this convention of churches! Next year, the meeting will take place in Orlando, FL. I have a hunch the kiddos might make that trip with us!

These responses are, of course, not surprising. Conservative Christians have long held for the sanctity of life and opposition to abortion from conception. Most evangelicals have not responded favorably to the GOP platform on life. However…

…the impact of the GOP platform is a different story. Although virtually all evangelicals are less than thrilled with the platform, the responses describing the potential effect on Donald Trump or Republican support are diverse and fascinating.

I’ve noticed three general evangelical responses:

First, there are Christians who have predicted this moment since 2016 and warned of the potential devastation from Trumpism. These Christians are usually labeled as “moderate” or “liberal” and continue to be dismissed by the more conservative Christian community. They were never voting for Trump in the first place, so the GOP platform has little impact on their intentions other than providing them a perceived justification to say, “I told you so.” The following two posts represent this group (the first is sarcasm):

Second, there are conservative Christians who have historically been single-issue voters related to abortion but are nevertheless willing to stay with Trump. They are making that decision because Republicans seem to offer a significantly more conservative approach to social issues, despite the problematic GOP platform. Some in this group are acknowledging the decline in the GOP’s social convictions, while others are issuing reminders that Roe v. Wade was overturned and as such, the states now have the right to determine the law of the land. Still others in this group believe that the Republican party has been fractured for years – well before Trump – and that conservative evangelicalism has been but one important, but not exclusive faction of the party. Here are two posts representing this group:

Third, there is a group of conservative Christians who were heavily pro-Trump but remain committed to being a single-issue voter and will no longer vote for Trump. This group is perhaps the most fascinating since, it seems to me, they represent the most conservative of the three categories. That might initially cause one to think that this group would be pro-Trump since they have defended him through all kinds of madness. But for this group, abortion truly is the Rubicon; there is no going back.

A frustrating argument from this group goes like this: “Since we have told fellow Christians for years that we can’t vote for a Democrat due to their pro-life position, how can we now vote for Trump? The principle remains the same.”

Well, I agree with that principle. So, why is it frustrating to me? Because conservatives had also told Christians for many years that we must not vote for a candidate who embodies deficient moral character. What happened to that principle in 2016? For some reason, the abortion principle is absolute (which I have no problem with) while the moral-character principle was not (which I do have a problem with). Thus, I respect this group’s ultimate conclusion, but I’m frustrated by their inconsistency. Here are two posts representing this group:

We will see what happens over the next couple of months to these three categories of evangelicals.

As we pray for former President Trump and the United States of America, how should followers of Jesus be processing today’s horrific events? Here are a couple of things I’ve been thinking about:

Political violence as a means to achieve political goals or to pursue a political ideology must be denounced by all Americans, and certainly by all Christians. In 1801, the first peaceful transfer of power in the United States occurred. John Adams, a Federalist, departed from Washington D.C. as Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, began his tenure as President. Our nation is one of strongly divided opinions on a variety of important issues. Still, we have consistently repudiated the use of violence to establish a political party, a political leader, or a political agenda. Regardless of your party affiliation or your voting plans come November, today’s shooting stands against who we are as a country and what we believe as followers of Jesus.

In John 17 – the High Priestly Prayer – Jesus gives thanks to God for the unity of the church. Because the Son is one with the Father and we are united to the Son, we share that unity as brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus says, “they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (John 17:22-23). In this moment, Christians can speak with one voice against evil and violence as citizens first of Christ’s kingdom, even as we might passionately disagree on issues in a democracy such as ours in the United States.

Finally, we are reminded today that the church of Jesus Christ has the keys to the kingdom. As IMB President Paul Chitwood so often reminds us, the world’s greatest problem is lostness and every person will own the responsibility of their sin. But the great hope of the world is not a secret to the church. We have been given the answer to lostness. We know firsthand the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. May today be another reminder of the urgency of our mission.

We will worship this Sunday the Sovereign Lord as the body of believers known as Graefenburg Baptist. He reigns. He rules. He is coming soon.

Soli Deo Gloria – For the Glory of God Alone!

Pastor Philip

The Law Amendment
The Law Amendment was a proposed amendment to Article III of the SBC Constitution. Article III, subparagraph I provides 5 identifiers to clarify what it means for a church to be in friendly cooperation with the SBC. The first identifier states that a church must have a “faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith.” That statement of faith is currently the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Article VI of the BFM2000 describes the two offices of the church – pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. It also says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

Southern Baptists passionately and convictionally embrace that truth. They demonstrated their commitment to complementarianism last year by deeming Saddleback Church and Fern Creek Baptist Church to not be in friendly cooperation with the SBC due to ordaining and employing female pastors. This year, messengers deemed First Baptist Church, Alexandria, VA to not be in friendly cooperation with the SBC for the same reason. After the votes were counted, 92% of the messengers in the room voted to remove FBC Alexandria. 

So, back to the Law Amendment. This amendment sought to add a sixth identifier to Article III, subparagraph I which would read that a church is only in friendly cooperation with the SBC if it “Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” The stated purpose of the amendment was to give our Credentials Committee clarity on what constitutes a church being in friendly cooperation. Last year the amendment passed, but since it is a constitutional amendment, it must pass two years in a row. This year, the vote was 61% in the affirmative, just shy of the 66% necessary for it to pass. Therefore, the amendment failed.  

Despite the spin of media headlines, the failure to reach 66% had little to do with the messengers’ conviction on complementarianism and almost everything to do with the question of necessity. We have demonstrated multiple times that our statement of faith and identifier #1 in Article III of the SBC Constitution is sufficient for messengers to deem a church to no longer be in friendly cooperation with the SBC. My concern last year was that we would begin writing multiple statements from the BFM2000 as additional identifiers in Article III. Our statement of faith is beautiful, powerful, biblical, and sufficient for answering the question of pastoral qualifications. That is, I believe, the primary reason the amendment failed. 

Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force (ARITF)
The ARITF provided every church with a new “Essentials” curriculum designed to train churches for abuse prevention and survivor care. Every staff member at Graefenburg Baptist Church is reading through this curriculum and will be discussing it together. I’m excited to discover how we can improve our abuse prevention policies and keep our children safe as they learn about Jesus.   

The ARITF also asked the Executive Committee to take the reigns and move forward with the “Ministry Check” website which would provide a database of abusers for Southern Baptist Churches. That list, as of now, would consist of people who have 1) been convicted of sexual abuse in a criminal court or 2) found liable for sexual abuse in a civil court. (On a side note, I’m surprised there was no pushback from the floor that categories #3 and #4 were left off the ministry check website. Those categories would have included abusers who confessed to abuse in a non-privileged setting or who had been “credibly accused” of abuse. However, others were delighted to see those categories left off the table since there was considerable concern about an innocent party being included on the ministry check list.)

In addition, the ARITF has given the Executive Committee the task of creating a permanent home for abuse reform and response. Initially, this home for abuse reform was going to be a third-party, independent organization outside the SBC, but things have changed and there are hopes that the SBC can create a means inside the Convention to provide this service. It will be interesting to see what happens with this over the next year.

IMB Missionary Sending Celebration
If there is one issue on which all Southern Baptists can be fully united, it is the task of loving, caring, supporting, and sending our missionaries to share the gospel all over the world. The IMB Sending Celebration is something you have to experience to appreciate, and this year we sent 83 missionaries for gospel ministry. Paul Chitwood, former Executive Director for the Kentucky Baptist Convention, is doing a phenomenal job as President of the IMB.

Executive Committee President Dr. Jeff Iorg
Just a few months ago the Executive Committee elected Dr. Jeff Iorg as the new EC President. He provided his first EC report at the Annual Meeting and concentrated his remarks on the centrality of the mission – winning people for Jesus. He mentioned four important issues that are necessary for the SBC to address, but not primary for our mission. He called those four issues “mission substitutes” and suggested they are: Political Activism, Social Justice, Convention Reform, and Doctrinal Conformity. While not downplaying the importance of each of those activities, Dr. Iorg urged Southern Baptists to keep our focus on what is eternal, because “the mission matters most.”  

We are praying for the newly elected SBC President Clint Pressley and for the work of the Convention over the next year.

The reasons for this decision were not disclosed by Lifeway other than to describe their “goal of best stewarding our resources to serve Christ’s church even as some needs of the church may change over time.” All Southern Baptists are aware of Lifeway’s challenging financial path the last several years, including Glorietta and Ridgecrest Conference centers being sold and brick and mortar stores being discontinued. It is important to remember that Lifeway is not supported by the Cooperative Program; they make their money through the sale of their products. So, I am certainly not in a position to question Lifeway’s financial evaluation that led to this decision, and I’m certain that Lifeway is sincere in its desire to best serve the needs of the church in a way that is beneficial to Southern Baptists and healthy for their bottom line.

With that being said, this is sad, sad news. Worship is central to the Southern Baptist Convention. We are a group of churches who partner together for Great Commission cooperation so that the spiritually lost of this world will be saved and enter a life of worship to our Creator God. From our preaching to our music to our prayers to our Scripture reading, the worship of the local church defines who we are and what we are about. The entities of the Southern Baptist Convention exist for the cooperative purpose of making disciples who worship in healthy churches. For that reason, it is disheartening to see an SBC service devoted to the practical implementation of weekly worship come to an end.

Even more confusing is the timing of this announcement. Worship leaders were given a small window of time to study, experience, and move to a different platform for worship planning. The Annual Meeting of the SBC was just a few weeks ago – would it have been possible to provide a Q&A at the meeting as a precursor to this announcement? Are there any future plans for an online worship service to aid SBC churches in their worship planning?

For my church, this is a significant hit. Graefenburg Baptist Church’s worship pastor, Dr. Jay Padgett, is a lifelong Southern Baptist. He has been faithfully serving at GBC for over 20 years as our Pastor for Worship. In 2008, he ordered the Baptist Hymnal 2008 and started using Lifeway Worship for his planning needs. That has been his trusted source for 15 years.

When the news broke, Pastor Jay wrote a gracious email to Lifeway. I asked his permission to publish that email here since I think it is helpful to see how this decision is impacting worship pastors. As is customary for Pastor Jay, the email is beautifully written and kind in its tone. I sure hope Lifeway seeks another path to come alongside pastors and lay leaders as they desire to prepare well for our worship of the Lord.

Pastor Jay’s Letter to Lifeway:

Lifeway,

“The difficult decision to discontinue Lifeway Worship” is horrible news!

The announcement was made with sufficient vagueness concerning the “why” (stewarding resources) of the discontinuation. Additionally, nothing was said of “how” Lifeway’s future plans will faithfully focus resources to Southern Baptist church musicians (other than PraiseCharts and SongSelect).

Before LifewayWorship.Com and Baptist Hymnal 2008, I was using six different resources for worship planning and music selection. But LifewayWorship, with a single resource, made my professional life as worship pastor much easier and enjoyable. LifewayWorship has helped my worship band to continue to grow from keyboards, guitars, and drums with the publication of additional instrumental parts, including charts for the faithful musicians that play alto sax, flutes, clarinet, violin, and cello in worship.

Mike Harland’s introduction to Baptist Hymnal 2008 echoes in my mind: [Baptist Hymnal 2008 is] “the first hymnal of its kind to have a corresponding digital and web-based version. lifewayworhip.com has been developed concurrently with this print edition and includes even more songs and visual resources to complement this volume. And, we are committed to updating this material on the Web so that, in effect, we are creating a hymnal with ‘no back cover.'” Mike, if you are reading or listening, I hope in some fashion your words come true – again.

Man alive, I hate this. Here’s hoping and praying for a plan to resource SBC church musicians on 1 October 2023.

Respectfully disappointed,

Jay Padgett

One of two things is happening in the church described by Bird’s question.

First Scenario
The church above has a female “worship pastor” but is functioning simply as a coordinator or leader of the music program. The female is not “exercising oversight” and is not intending to fulfill the roles and qualifications of an elder/pastor. If that is the case, then the female is not a pastor. The name should be changed to director or coordinator or minister because she isn’t functioning as a pastor. It is surprising how many folks seem to be content with giving someone the title of “pastor” without much concern for the role they are playing in the church.

If the above church has a female worship pastor who isn’t actually functioning as a pastor, then they need to change the name. That is what I hope this entire SBC discussion will educate our churches to do.

Second Scenario
The church above has a female “worship pastor” and she is, in fact, functioning as a pastor. By that I mean she is exercising oversight and fulfilling the roles and qualifications of an elder. If that is the case, then the church is not in friendly cooperation with the SBC and would need to either adjust their approach to the pastorate, or step away from the SBC. (or, of course, the Credentials Committee would get involved if the church was reported).

Associate Pastoral Roles
I believe one ongoing area of confusion surrounding eldership is the associate roles. A “worship pastor” or “education pastor” or “youth pastor” are still functioning with the full authority of an elder. That is so crucial to understand for this discussion. If those positions are not exercising oversight and shepherding the flock, then they should not be called a pastor. It is very possible and very beautiful for a plurality of elders to share equal authority while also maintaining areas of focus and emphasis.

For example, the “lead” or “senior” pastor is typically the primary preaching pastor and casts the ongoing vision for the church. Understandably and rightfully, the other elders and the congregation care deeply about the lead pastor’s position and opinion on a variety of issues. But he is not greater or better or higher than any other pastor with whom he serves. He might be a supervisor and provide leadership to various pastoral staff roles, but he must always understand the elders to be co-equals in pastoral ministry.

In his book “The Pluraity Principle,” Dave Harvey provides a helpful quote on this issue. He says, “Now, I want to be clear. A team leader—or, to use the common title, senior pastor—is not a call to headship over the team… [however] biblical leadership, though shared, is frequently organized around and facilitated by a central figure.”

That is exactly right and so helpful to the discussion. So, the SBC can do one of two things. We can wave a white flag and lose hope on what the word “pastor” actually means, or we can do the necessary work to take that biblical word seriously and adjust the titles of our churches to match what is actually taking place in their ministry.

Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The point of the amendment is clear – if you are a pastor, then you are an elder. If you are an elder, then you are an overseer. The terms do not represent three different offices in the church, but all refer to the same office of pastor/elder. Although it is not the point of this article to defend that position, a variety of biblical passages can be used to demonstrate the interchangeable nature of the terms. This is what Baptists have always believed, dating back to the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message where pastors are referred to as both “elders” and “bishops.”

In light of the BFM2000 amendment, I am interested to see how SBC churches that have men who carry the title “pastor” but are not listed as an “elder” respond to the changes. Let me clarify…

I’m going to describe a particular approach by several SBC churches. Some churches have a group of men who serve as pastors that represent the salaried pastoral staff. If you visit the website of these churches and click on “Pastors” you will find a group of men listed with the title “pastor” (lead pastor, pastor for worship, pastor for young adults, etc). This is normal and to be expected. However, these same churches also have a board of elders. And if you look carefully, you will notice that some of the men who are listed as pastors for the church are not listed on the board of elders. So, you might see “John Smith – Pastor for Young Adults” on the pastor page, but John Smith is not listed on the elders page.

What does this mean? It means that some of those SBC churches believe that a man can carry the title of “pastor” for the church but not be an “elder” of the church. Why would they do such a thing? I suppose different churches would have different reasons. Here are two that I think are prominent:

1. Some churches might believe that a younger, inexperienced pastor is not yet ready for the full role of an elder who is called to “exercise oversight” for the entire congregation. Thus, they believe it is wise to give a more inexperienced pastor the opportunity to serve and grow in their position before placing them on the elder board where the weightiest matters of the church will be discussed and decided. So, Jim Smith might be doing great with the college-age group as their pastor, but isn’t yet prepared for the full responsibilities of an elder.
2. Other churches might embrace the position recently put forth by Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. They believe a person can have the spiritual gift of pastoring without carrying the office of pastor (primarily based on Ephesians 4). So, a person might be referred to as a pastor but doesn’t hold the office.

The first option above seems to make practical sense. The problem is that the NT doesn’t provide room for this as a possibility. There are no examples of pastors who haven’t yet made it as an elder. If you give someone the title of “pastor” then you need to be comfortable with them having fulfilled the qualifications for pastor/elder and be willing for them to serve in the full capacity of that role. If you are not convinced they fulfill the qualifications for full pastoral/eldership responsibilities, then don’t give them the title of pastor. Instead, give them the title of “minister” or “team lead.” The word “pastor” is a very specific word that carries a very specific meaning.

Some argue that this is semantics. Hardly. The Bible uses words to convey specific, spiritual, eternal truths. The word “pastor” or “elder” is one of the most important words in the Bible. It is accompanied by a host of duties and responsibilities that the person who is blessed to carry that title should be fulfilling. If they are not yet equipped to fulfill those duties, then the person should not be called a pastor. I believe it is confusing to the church and a distortion of the Scriptures to create a division between pastors and elders.

The second option above is, in my opinion, simply poor exegesis. If you want to dive into the specifics, then I recommend this article by Denny Burk.

It is possible that some churches will have separate lists for “pastors” and “elders” simply as a way to designate who is on paid staff for the church and who is a “lay elder.” That is understandable, but still confusing, especially to those not familiar with the terms.

I do not expect the change to the BFM2000 to have much impact on these churches that have pastors who do not serve as elders. I say that because these churches have known about the interchangeable nature of the terms long before this amendment came about. However, it is possible that the BFM2000 amendment might cause leadership to revisit the issue if they haven’t in a while. I think that could be a very good thing. I would love for our beloved SBC to be as consistent on this issue as possible, for the good of the church and for the glory of God.

The Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention for 2023 is behind us and several important issues were addressed. I think the messengers (members from Southern Baptist Churches all over the country who attend the Annual Meeting) voted correctly and convictionally on most topics and I remain optimistic about the future of the SBC. Below are some brief highlights of key moments from this year’s meeting.

Saddleback Community Church
Earlier this year, the Executive Committee affirmed a recommendation from the Credentials Committee and deemed Saddleback Community Church “not in friendly cooperation” with the Southern Baptist Convention. The reason for the removal was the presence of female pastors at Saddleback Church which falls outside of our Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Fern Creek Baptist Church was also removed for the same reason. Rick Warren and Saddleback Church appealed the decision, which meant the messengers would ultimately decide if the ruling of the Executive Committee would stand.

The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of upholding the Executive Committee’s decision, with 88.46% of the ballots cast voting to affirm the decision and only 11.36% voting to reverse it. This vote partially demonstrates that Southern Baptists remain steadfast in their complementarian position concerning men and women, and that the so-called “liberal drift” of the SBC is nothing but hot air.

It is worth noting that the messengers also passed a resolution during this year’s meeting titled, “On the legacy and responsibility of women fulfilling the Great Commission.” The resolution gives thanks for the giftedness of women and calls on them to fulfill the mandate of the Great Commission, just as they have been doing since the beginning of the SBC. If it were not for the faithful women serving and leading at Graefenburg Baptist Church, then we would be severely compromised in our mission of transforming lives in Jesus.

President Bart Barber’s Convention Address
Not only was Bart Barber convincingly re-elected to a second term over challenger Mike Stone, but he also preached one of the best Convention sermons I have ever heard. Bart beautifully weaved the academic and intellectual prowess of Hans Urs von Balthasar and his “theological aesthetics” into a simple and applicable challenge to Southern Baptists to notice the beautiful in our theology, our convention, and our churches. Bart also did a phenomenal job moderating the meeting, putting on a fine display of his procedural acumen, all while demonstrating kindness and patience. At one point, and I am not exaggerating, he spoke to a messenger with a straight face and said – “Yesterday was one day before today” – and he was completely sincere, trying to get the messenger to understand the timing for submitting resolutions. That line from Bart elicited this reaction from me and a good pastor friend of mine:

Mike Law’s Constitutional Amendment
During the 2022 Annual Meeting in Anaheim last year, Virginia messenger Mike Law made a motion to amend the SBC Constitution. The amendment calls for a sixth identifier that would provide additional restrictions on churches that would be deemed “in friendly cooperation” with the SBC. That sixth identifier would state, “not affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind.”

The rationale for this amendment was due to confusion over the language in the BFM2000 that states, “…the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Some in the Convention understood the word “pastor” to refer only to the senior (or lead) pastor, thereby allowing the possibility that women could serve in associate pastor roles. The amendment would eliminate that possibility and clarify that the office of pastor, in its entirety, is limited to men.

I actually voted against the amendment – not because I disagree with its doctrine or principle – but because I am concerned about creating a second statement of faith in our Constitution. How many more “identifiers” will we list in the Constitution? We already have a clear statement of faith and the messengers had just proved that we can deem a church “not in friendly cooperation” through the process already established (Credentials Committee, Executive Committee, appeal process, etc). By the time the Law Amendment came to the floor, the messengers had already voted to uphold the decision of the Executive Committee to disfellowship Saddleback, thus proving we don’t need a sixth identifier in the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the Law Amendment passed by an overwhelming majority. Because it is a Constitutional Amendment, it will have to pass again at the 2024 Annual Meeting. Time will tell. I’m fine with the outcome either way, but I prefer to let our statement of faith be our statement of faith.

James Merritt and the SBC Presidents Motion
Adding an interesting twist to the situation, James Merritt was accompanied by several former SBC presidents at the mic as he made a motion during the second opportunity for motions. I mention that only because the presidents did not get a chance to make their motion during the first session, which is just so Baptist and so awesome. When you are on the floor and a messenger, you are equal to everyone else. You have to wait your turn just like every other messenger. Here was James Merrit, Steve Gaines, JD Greear, and Bryan Wright standing at a microphone and never getting called on. It was incredible.

Anyway, Merritt made a motion for the President to form a task force to study the phrase “closely identifies” in our Constitution in order to provide clarity on what a church must abide by in order to remain in the SBC. The motion passed. (This was a similar motion that Adam Greenway made last year which failed, but Greenway made his motion in the middle of a tense report from the Credentials Committee where messengers were annoyed with the idea of studying what the word “pastor” means. I was convinced then and am convinced today that Greenway’s motion failed only because it was wrapped up in that larger Credentials Committee conversation.)

It will be interesting to hear what the task force recommends to the messengers next year concerning the phrase “closely identifies.” It is possible (although not likely) that this year’s votes could be reconsidered by the messengers if the task force recommendations go in a slightly different direction than what was established this year.

The Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force (ARITF) Gets Another Year
Chairman Marshall Blalock offered a powerful, emotional, and moving report concerning the ARITF. Messengers strongly voted in favor of extending the ARITF another year so they can complete the work assigned to them by the Convention. Specifics on what will constitute a “credibly accused” abuser remains the most challenging aspect of the ARITF’s work, and the task force temporarily paused “category 4” from the forthcoming online abuser database until a consensus can be reached. You can read more about category 4 and the ARITF abuser database at this article.

An Amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000
This was the most bizarre and troublesome moment of the meeting. The BFM2000 was amended by the messengers simply through a motion and vote, with hardly any discussion or debate. It was surreal. I was 99% certain that the Order of Business would refer the motion to the Executive Committee for them to study and report back on next year. But no, we voted on it right then and there in New Orleans.

The motion changed Article 6 of the BFM2000 by adding the words “elder” and “overseer” to the word “pastor.” That is something I fully support and makes perfect sense – I wrote about this very thing in my D.Min dissertation! So, I was thrilled to see the clarification. But still, our statement of faith should not be so easily amended. The new Article 6 will now read like this:

“In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

Denny Burk is already coming up with ideas on how we should move forward to ensure a more thorough process is in place for amending the BFM2000.

I’m already looking forward to SBC24 in Indianapolis next year. This was a good year of decision-making, and as they usually do, the messengers voted in good and appropriate ways. I hope we continue to do the same in the years ahead.

Strong Impact

Tony Reinke’s “God, Technology, and the Christian Life” was an insightful journey describing the providence of God and the advancement of technology. Reinke structures his book through a series of six questions: 1) What is technology? 2) What is God’s relationship to technology? 3) Where do our technologies come from? 4) What can technology never accomplish? 5) When do our technologies end? 6) How should we use technology today?

Unsurprisingly, Reinke provides intelligent exegesis (some of which the reader will almost certainly have never considered) through a variety of biblical texts, but also incorporates important voices from church history. Fundamental to Reinke’s discussion is his observation that technology advances faster than the ethics necessary to keep it in check. However, God’s providence – beginning with the confusion of languages at Babel – has created a global subversion that creates a healthy system of checks and balances to push back against universal tech adoption. Reinke says, “[God] coded internal tensions and disharmony into the drama of humanity, tensions that will help check and limit the adoption of technologies in a fallen world” (p. 42).

Most students with formal training in the Bible will be familiar with the arguments of primary and secondary causes that help describe God’s sovereignty over all things while preserving human freedom and responsibility. It was fascinating to read how those theological concepts were implemented in regard to the creation, advancement, and utilization of technology around the world. Unlike many of his peers, Reinke does not have an inherently negative view of technology or its future use. God is the one who raises up and brings down the people who continue to make evident the positive and negative use of innovation. In this way, “no destruction will befall our world except those that God governs for his ultimate purposes. In other words: fear God, not the technicians” (p. 63).

From a pastoral perspective, I recommend Reinke’s book for evangelical Christians who have a tendency to see every new innovative discovery as yet another fingerprint of Satan’s ongoing attack against humanity and creation. His balanced and biblical approach will help those who are fearful of the world’s seemingly out-of-control trajectory, and might be especially helpful for parents whose primary job description has become one of prohibiting every possible means of technology all in the name of fighting against the forces of evil. Some of Reinke’s arguments, especially in the earlier portions of the book, intrigued me but did not necessarily convince me. But as a whole, his approach is trustworthy and helpful. You might consider adding it to your 2023 reading list.

Those Pesky Expectations

Everything Sad Is Untrue by Daniel Nayeri was one of the most universally acclaimed titles I had seen in a long time. Every sphere of my online world – conservative evangelicals, progressive Christians, journalists who lean both to the left and the right, and even friends and acquaintances – were all hyping Nayeri’s book as a modern masterpiece; an actual “must read” for 2022. I do not remember seeing a single negative or even neutral response to the book. Everything was glowing.

That is always a dangerous way to open up a book.

The book is very, very good. I read it over a period of 3 days while on vacation in Daytona Beach, FL. Everything Sad Is Untrue is a somewhat fictionalized biographical account of a young Iranian refugee. As he effectively shares stories of bullying, refugee camps, poems, classmates, and family, he occasionally reveals the source of his ongoing hope and optimism – a growing faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And his subtle return to this theme throughout the book is always written with artistic beauty. Such as, “You either get the truth or you get good news – you don’t often get both.”

There isn’t really anything negative to say, except that I closed the book – happy that I had read it – but far from drawing the conclusion that I just experienced a modern masterpiece. One of the elements that was praised by fans of the book was Daniel’s effortless ability to blend fiction with historical fact. And to be certain, there were times when this literary technique did contribute positively to the story. But I found it to be somewhat annoying at times as well, unsure of what I was to think of the particular tale he was telling at the moment, since many of the true stories were, in fact, sensational.

At the end of the day, I have nothing against Nayeri’s book. He is a talented writer and his story is incredible. I would even recommend it. But it didn’t quite capture for me what it apparently did for so many others.

Here’s to another year of reading in 2023! Soli Deo Gloria!

The start of a New Year always elicits the same question – which Bible reading plan should I try this year? Well, I stumbled across a new reading plan on Twitter that piqued my interest and I decided to give it a shot for 2023. The plan was developed by Jason Seville and he named it a rather long and somewhat ridiculous name – which makes me love it even more. It is called “The Alternating Chrono-Harmonic-Ecclesiocentric Bible Reading Plan.”

Jason does a great job explaining the theory behind his plan (and behind the name) over at his Twitter account. I would recommend you go read this thread to better understand the reading plan and see if it might be something you want to try out.

If so, then I hope you will consider joining me in my Facebook group where we can read the Bible together.

**Jason has asked that anyone who uses his plan fill out this simple form so he can keep track of various analytics. So, even if you join my group, please fill out the form first. Thanks!