There is a simmering debate taking place among Southern Baptists. The debate centers on the question of whether to not women can hold the office, title, and-or function of pastor (elder, overseer).

At the national level, in the summer of 2023, the Southern Baptist Convention overwhelmingly voted to disfellowship several churches (most notably, Saddleback, formerly pastored by Rick Warren) for recognizing women as pastors (elders, overseers).

At the state level, the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention (of which my church, Immanuel, is a part) overwhelmingly passed a motion to interpret the SBTC’s constitutional affiliation requirement that the “office of pastor be limited to men” to apply “not only to the titles of senior pastor or lead pastor, but to any role designated by the noun ‘pastor.’” This vote took place in 2022. Surprisingly, the implementation of this motion was delayed at the 2023 annual meeting.

Some of those who supported this delay justified their decision by appealing to the pending business that will take place at the annual meeting of the SBC in the summer of 2024. The hope of these folks seemed to be that the SBC would make a decision that the SBTC could simply follow. Others justified their decision to support this delay with reasoning that sounded remarkably similar to the arguments made by Rick Warren and his supporters.

The issue of female pastors has proved incredibly division within the SBC, and I don’t think the divisiveness is going away any time soon. There are multiple perspectives, opinions, and voices in this debate – but for the sake of simplicity, I’ll mention the three most common positions.

• First, there are voices arguing that Southern Baptists should insist on “senior” pastors being male, while also arguing that any other “staff” pastor can be male or female. Thus, we would only have male senior pastors, but any female staff members could be recognized with the title “pastor” (elder, overseer).
• Second, there are voices arguing that pastor, elder, overseer are not up for debate, and anyone who is given one of these titles must be a biblically qualified male. This would be the consistently complementarian position, one that insists there is no biblical distinction between “senior” pastors and “staff” pastors. A pastor is a pastor (elder, overseer).
• Third, there are voices arguing for a “third way.” These voices want Southern Baptists to unite around missions and evangelism, even while we disagree about the question of female pastors (elders, overseers). These voices are calling us to missiological unity and urging us to let each local church make its own decision about whether or not female staff members can be recognized as pastors (elders, overseers).

My point in this post is simple. A “third way” where Southern Baptists unite around missions and evangelism while “agreeing to disagree” on the question of female pastors is simply not possible. Consider the following realities.

• Those arguing for the autonomy of the local church are missing the point entirely. Some of the most strident voices are appalled that the SBC or any state convention would dare to tell a local church how to operate or what to believe. We’re Baptists, after all, and we believe that each local church is autonomous! On the point of autonomy, I issue a hearty, amen! However, the voices raising this objection are missing the point. No convention is telling its member churches what to do or how to operate. The SBC and various state conventions are simply and rightly defining the bounds of cooperation. The IMB has done this with respect to charismatic gifts. The SBC has always done this with the question of baptism, not allowing paedo-baptism. More recently, Southern Baptists have made the handling a sexual abuse a standard for cooperation. None of these examples are violations of autonomy. Churches are free to operate and believe as they see fit, and the conventions are free to define the parameters of cooperation.
• The words pastor, elder, and overseer are used interchangeably in the New Testament to refer to the group of called, qualified men who lead a local church (see the graphic below). The New Testament does not attempt to parse out title, office, and function, nor does the New Testament distinguish between “senior” pastors and “staff” pastors. Southern Baptists have long favored the western, corporate model that sets a “senior” pastor at the top of an organizational flow chart. This is a corporate model of leadership – not a biblical model. If Southern Baptist churches need to revisit their organizational flow charts, titles, and bylaws, so be it. We’ve always claimed to be people of the Book, not people beholden to western, corporate structures. We need a reformation in ecclesiology, and this reformation needs to include our thinking about pastors (elders, overseers), deacons, membership, worship, and missions.

• Just to be clear, no one in this debate is trying to sideline or silence women. Rick Warren tried to make this argument, and others have followed suit, subtly trying to change the debate by asking about women teaching college students, women serving on the mission field, women writing theological resources, and women doing all sorts of religious activities. Each of these issues obscures the fact that the central question before us the office, title, and function of a pastor (elder, overseer). Arguing that people want to sideline women introduces a red herring into the debate, and it misses the fundamental, biblical issue. That issue centers on a very Baptist question, “What does the Bible say about this issue, and how can we be faithful to the New Testament teaching on ecclesiology?”
• Missiological cooperation cannot be separated from ecclesiological agreement. If the planting of new churches is the goal of our missions efforts, we have to agree -at least on a baseline level – on what those churches are going to look like and how they are going to function. We don’t usually plant churches with Presbyterians because we disagree about what those churches are going to look like and how they are going to function. We have ecclesiological disagreement about the nature of church leadership and the proper subject of baptism. Similarly, we don’t plant churches with groups that favor an episcopacy or that recognize apostles. Again, these are questions of ecclesiology. Southern Baptists have to agree on ecclesiology if we are going to continue cooperating in missiology.
• The question of who can rightly be recognized as a pastor (elder, overseer) is a secondary theological issue, not a primary or a tertiary issue. To be sure, matters of ecclesiology are not primary issues pertaining to orthodoxy and salvation. However, matters of ecclesiology are secondary matters pertaining to how a church is structured and how a church operates. Baptism is one such issue, one that separates like-minded believers from planting churches together. On the other hand, tertiary issues are those where disagreement does not hinder our unity within a local church. Tertiary issues involve some questions of methodology, programming, and issues like the timing of the rapture. The voices that are insisting the question of women pastors is not a primary issue are right – this isn’t a fundamental matter of orthodoxy or salvation. At the same time, the voices insisting that the question of women pastors is a tertiary issue that need not divide us are simply wrong. There can be no lasting unity within the SBC apart from agreement on fundamental questions of ecclesiology.
• The “third way” being presented by some is allegedly motivated by a desire to keep Southern Baptists together in a unified group. Unfortunately, this noble motivation is just as short-sighted as those who have advocated a “third way” on the issue of homosexuality. In both cases, the third way allows for innovation to reign supreme and insists that the traditionalists simply stand down without objection. On the question of women pastors, the third way allows those who want women pastors to remain within the SBC while forcing complementarian churches to endure churches who insist on having female pastors (elders, overseers). Further, through the Cooperative Program, the third way would call on complementarian churches to financially support church plants that favor female staff members receiving the title pastor (elder, overseer). Pragmatically, I get it. National and state conventions don’t want to lose churches who insist on female pastors (elders, overseers) because losing churches means losing money. However, it’s worth noting that there is no path forward that doesn’t involve losing churches. Either conventions will take a stand for biblical fidelity on this issue, or complementarian churches will leave.
• The “third way” is entirely unstable as a stopping point. Some have argued that Southern Baptists have always believed that the office of “senior” pastor was reserved for qualified men, while also being open to the possibility of female “staff” pastors. I disagree with this argument, and I think the question of who could be a pastor was largely assumed in decades past. Now that the issue has been brought to the forefront, a decision must be made. For what it’s worth, this is how doctrine and false teaching always develops. A new idea arises, often one that was simply assumed by previous generations. This new idea requires a new generation to clarify what the church has always believed. These clarifications are not doctrinal innovation, nor are they changes to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Instead, these clarifications are how the church remains faithful to the faith once for all delivered to the saints in a world of doctrinal deviancy. Those who want to limit the office of “senior” pastor to qualified men while also allowing women to serve as “staff” pastors have created an biblical distinction and an unstable solution. The distinction between senior and staff pastors is not a New Testament distinction. Pastors (elders, overseers) are the group of qualified men called to lead a local church. A twenty-first century church deciding to use those titles in new ways does not negate the pattern set forth in the New Testament. Again, our aim must not be following bylaws or precedent or tradition, nor should our aim be defending what our culture would approve of. Rather, our aim must be biblical faithfulness.