My church (Immanuel) switched affiliation from the BGCT to the SBTC in 2014. One of the main reasons was the softness of the BGCT on the issue of the ordination of women and the clarity offered by the SBTC as a confessional convention adhering to the Baptist Faith and Message (2000).

Recently, I recently served four years as a member of the Committee on Order of Business for the SBTC. That committee helps plan the annual meeting and make decisions about business that needs to be brought before the messengers. In 2022 Ben Wright made a motion that the SBTC clarify its interpretation of our own bylaws. That motion called the SBTC to clarify that the title and office of pastor was reserved for qualified men.

I was shocked at the opposition to Ben’s motion in 2022. Prominent pastors – men I respected – spoke against Ben’s motion. Again, I was shocked at the opposition in 2023 when we saw a heavy handed push to delay the implementation of the 2022 vote, as well as an announcement for a future amendment that would “carve out” an allowance for female staff pastors. Again, I was shocked at the opposition in 2024 when there was an attempt to use parliamentary rules to go back and undo the clear will of the messengers in 2022. Still again, I am shocked that the Credentials Committee of the SBTC has seemingly allowed a church to remain in friendly cooperation by changing the title “pastor” to “shepherd.” This change is an insult to the clearly expressed will of the messengers of recent SBTC meetings. It is also an insult to the intelligence of the messengers of the SBTC, as if we don’t know that the Greek word poimen is translated “shepherd” or “pastor” in English.

My questions are as follows.

Why are some SBTC pastors dead-set on allowing a carve out for female “staff” pastors? On what basis do some of these pastors distinguish between elders and overseers on the one hand, and pastors on the other hand? I’ve heard the Rick Warren styled arguments, and like most SBTC pastors, I stand entirely unconvinced that there is a distinction to be made between pastors and elders.

Why don’t these churches just affiliate with the BGCT which already allows churches to recognize female pastors? I’m not demanding that anyone leave, nor am I trying to run anyone off. I am wondering … Why didn’t Rick Warren simply leave the SBC? Why didn’t FBC Alexandria simply leave the SBC? Why don’t these egalitarian leaning SBTC churches simply affiliate with the more moderate state convention? They say it’s a matter of church autonomy, and they insist that the SBTC doesn’t have standing to tell churches what to believe. I actually agree about the importance of autonomy – but I also know that the SBTC has every right to set the parameters of “friendly cooperation.” We already do this on a host of other areas – baptism, inerrancy, salvation by grace through faith not works. There is no reason why the SBTC could not clarify this issue as essential to friendly cooperation. Doing so would be no violation of church autonomy – it would only be the rightful exercise of convention authority to define who can partner with the SBTC.

Why don’t these churches simply change the titles female staff members to align with biblical categories? Titles like children’s director / leader / minister all convey biblical ideas without hi-jacking the biblical office (and titles) of elder / pastor / shepherd / overseer which are clearly limited to qualified men. Furthermore, the current push to allow for female “staff pastors” while prohibiting female “senior pastors” is entirely artificial and unstable. What possible exegetical support could their be for allowing one (female staff pastors) while prohibiting the other (female senior pastors)? I’ve heard no reasonable explanation for this position. In other words, if the STBC caves and allows churches to use the title elder / pastor / shepherd / overseer for female staff, we will eventually allow for female senior pastors. Once that hermeneutical approach is accepted, there is no backstop to prevent a collapse.

Why not just recognize the clear will of the messengers in the SBTC is to reserve the title and office and function of pastor to qualified men? Wright’s motion in 2022 passed with an overwhelming majority. The proposed delay in 2023 only passed with a very slim margin. The parliamentary parlor-trick was overwhelmingly rejected in 2024.

Based on what I’ve seen over the last four years, the overwhelming majority of SBTC pastors seem to be in favor of a consistent complementarian position – one that reserves the title and office of elder / pastor / shepherd / overseer to qualified men, and one that allows for female staff to be recognized as directors, leaders, and even ministers. Nevertheless, there seems to be a handful of influential leaders who want to push us toward a more egalitarian position. While I think the cries of “autonomy” are a red herring that have nothing to do with the expressed will of the convention, I do agree that this is fundamentally an issue of ecclesiology. The SBTC is a convention of churches partnering together to plant churches. That means we must have clarity and agreement on what kind of churches we’re going to plant. Furthermore, as a convention that has always stood for the inerrancy and authority of God’s Word, this is an issue of biblical authority. The Word of God is clear. That means we, too, must be clear.

A fellow pastor has written a helpful article on this same issue based on his experience with the credentials committee of the SBTC. You can read that article here.