SBC Holds the Line on Female Pastors

[Miss Marple]

I was gratified to see that the SBC, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, voted overwhelmingly to hold to male-only pastors:

Southern Baptist Convention votes to uphold removal of Saddleback Church over women pastors after appeal by Rick Warren

The annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention voted to affirm a decision made earlier this year to remove Saddleback Church, a major southern California congregation founded by the pastor and ...

news.yahoo.com

A resounding vote for biblical fidelity for a church with over 16 million members. Well done, brothers.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Where does the fear of God go in leaders who do things so clearly against the commands of God? I mean, I feel like I would seriously be fearing for my soul if I led thousands and thousands of people to go against God's command.

 

[retroGRAD3]

It's great to see this vote go the right direction but sadly there is still trouble brewing in the SBC.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Praise God!

Egalitarianism is so broadly assumed in broad evangelicalism that any time a denomination rejects it you should interpret it as taking a bold stand against the cultural norm.

 

[hammondjones]

I, like many others, owe the SBC much for my spiritual formation and life, even if I would not be a member today. May its witness increase.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Agreed.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

According to the stats, the SBC's high water mark was 2006, with 16.3 million members. In the last few years, there's been quite a hemorrhage, going from 14 million in 2020 to 13.2 million at the end of 2022. Many reasons appear to contribute to this, from what we can gather.

That having been said, this overwhelming upholding of Scriptural standards on this point is quite heartening and uncommon for our compromising times. I give thanks to God for it, whatever shortcomings that association might otherwise have.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Santos]

I was gratified to see that the SBC, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, voted overwhelmingly to hold to male-only pastors:

Southern Baptist Convention votes to uphold removal of Saddleback Church over women pastors after appeal by Rick Warren

The annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention voted to affirm a decision made earlier this year to remove Saddleback Church, a major southern California congregation founded by the pastor and ...

news.yahoo.com

A resounding vote for biblical fidelity for a church with over 16 million members. Well done, brothers.

Amen, but as an SBC member I can tell you this is but a small victory. But I am glad for it, nonetheless.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Praise God!

Egalitarianism is so broadly assumed in broad evangelicalism that any time a denomination rejects it you should interpret it as taking a bold stand against the cultural norm.

The RPCNA will be taking up the issue of their having female deacons at their Synod this week (it starts on page 9401 of their Docket and Digest - long and thorough but well worth reading for any interested in the issue). They are also taking up the issue of whether or not to amend their constitution to remove the current allowance for abortion (starts on p.335).

 

[Jake]

I'm still pleasantly surprised by this, with many family members in SBC churches that are functionally egalitarian and have been for 40+ years. At the last family gathering it sounds like several of their churches are leaving the SBC before they are forced out.

 

[arapahoepark]

I'm still pleasantly surprised by this, with many family members in SBC churches that are functionally egalitarian and have been for 40+ years. At the last family gathering it sounds like several of their churches are leaving the SBC before they are forced out.

Interesting dinner conversations?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

The RPCNA will be taking up the issue of their having female deacons at their Synod this week (it starts on page 9401 of their Docket and Digest - long and thorough but well worth reading for any interested in the issue). They are also taking up the issue of whether or not to amend their constitution to remove the current allowance for abortion (starts on p.335).

Female deacons? Goodness, I had no idea. That old serpent will get into any hole he can find. I will pray it goes well with them and that they take a stand for God’s Word, acknowledging the commandments of the Lord (ref. 1 Corinthians 14, et al).

 

[Jake]

Female deacons? Goodness, I had no idea. That old serpent will get into any hole he can find. I will pray it goes well with them and that they take a stand for God’s Word, acknowledging the commandments of the Lord (ref. 1 Corinthians 14, et al).

The ARP Church discussed female deacons at our Synod this year as well, as we also have them (along with one other NAPARC denomination, the ERQ). We are keeping the current position for now but it was not without a lot of discussion. Wisely I believe there will be more discussion of what the office of deacon entails, because I think that is the key issue in this discussion.

You may find this article interesting on women in the RPCNA: https://gentlereformation.com/2019/...kna0IppNbJ5GbzkIOj9ykJGJalLtCbRThWSs_3hpglrgA

 

[B.L.]

I've heard from quite a few churches in my area that the SBC has lost many members over the years to non-denominational churches. There seems to be a trend of anti-institutionalism that while isn't new per se has seen many move to non-denom congregations where the only real difference is tithes aren't sent to state and national level entities. Same understanding of the sacraments and the same polity essentially.

That said, I'm grateful for the SBC holding the line on women pastors.

 

[Robert K]

They are also taking up the issue of whether or not to amend their constitution to remove the current allowance for abortion (starts on p.335).

Respectfully, I think it would be a misunderstanding to think that the current testimony of the RPCNA allows abortion (although I do think the current language opens itself up to misunderstanding).

The proposed change is as follows:

Original 24.9

.. Deliberately induced abortion, except possibly to save the mother’s life, is murder.

Proposed 24.9

... Deliberately induced abortion is murder. When medical intervention to remove the child from the mother’s body is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or the child, all medically reasonable measures should be taken to honorably care for both the mother and child's life and body.

In the original testimony, the language “except possibly to save the mother’s life” corresponds to the proposed language, “When medical intervention to remove the child from the mother’s body is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or the child, all medically reasonable measures should be taken to honorably care for both the mother and child's life and body.”

The amendment does not change what we believe about abortion, but rather reflects a redefinition of the word “abortion” to be based on intent rather than effect. In the original testimony, “abortion” was assumed to include removing the child to save the life of the mother because of the effect, but it was not murder because of the intent. Since that time, the definition of an abortion has been helpfully clarified to be based on intent. In the same way that killing in self-defense is not murder, removing the child to save the life of the mother is not abortion according to the proposed amendment (and contemporary usage). However, the belief of the RPCNA stands, that the intentional killing babies is murder.

Understood that way, the only change is that the proposed amendment removes the word “possibly”, which is not referring not to abortion generally but to removing the child to save the life of the mother. The original testimony made allowance for those who might be convicted that they shouldn’t remove the child to save the life of the mother, hoping that God would miraculously intervene to save the life of both. The new testimony makes it explicit that removing the child to save the life of the mother is permissible because it is in the interest of saving life. If anything, the original testimony was more conservative, perhaps overly so.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The new testimony makes it explicit that removing the child to save the life of the mother is permissible because it is in the interest of saving life.

removing the child to save the life of the mother is not abortion according to the proposed amendment

The new testimony makes it explicit that removing the child to save the life of the mother is permissible because it is in the interest of saving life.

Having read the entirety of what was published in the docket, and knowing some of those involved in putting this forth, I believe you are mistaken. The justification for amending the Testimony is to eliminate the position "that removing the child to save the life of the mother is permissible." What the authors are proposing is that the intent of every effort be made to save both lives and NOT to value to life of the mother over the child. Here are some excerpts:

"If the doctor is attempting to remove the child from the mother’s body and attempting to save the life of both mother and child, and the doctor fails due to limitations of medical care, this is not murder and is not abortion per our definition." (p.15/349 emphasis added)

"The current language of our Testimony begins well, declaring every unborn child to be a human person from conception onward. But then it concludes with a statement that only upholds the value of the mother’s life and body." (p.21/355 emphasis added)

(Ibid.)

 

[Robert K]

Having read the entirety of what was published in the docket, and knowing some of those involved in putting this forth, I believe you are mistaken. The justification for amending the Testimony is to eliminate the position "that removing the child to save the life of the mother is permissible." What the authors are proposing is that the intent of every effort be made to save both lives and NOT to value to life of the mother over the child. Here are some excerpts:

"If the doctor is attempting to remove the child from the mother’s body and attempting to save the life of both mother and child, and the doctor fails due to limitations of medical care, this is not murder and is not abortion per our definition." (p.15/349 emphasis added)

"The current language of our Testimony begins well, declaring every unborn child to be a human person from conception onward. But then it concludes with a statement that only upholds the value of the mother’s life and body." (p.21/355 emphasis added)

View attachment 10353(Ibid.)

I did not intend to derail the OP, so I do not intend to continue to discuss this here. I agree that the original language which only mentioned the mother left room for improvement, which the proposed amendment seeks to address. What I disagree with is saying that there was no concern for the baby in actual fact (even if unwritten), or that we ever "allowed abortion". I voted to send this paper up to Synod and I am simply relaying some of my takeaways from the discussion at Presbytery.