Loading summary
Transcript28 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:06]
B
Welcome into the CBMW Podcast, your weekly speech therapy session to help you biblically process our world of anthropological confusion. I'm your host, Jonathan Swan, executive editor of Icon, a journal for biblical anthropology. Well, here a moment. I'm going to be passing off the show to CBMW's president, Denny Burke, and CBMW's executive director, Colin Smothers. And these brothers will be interviewing Dr. R. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to talk about a constitutional amendment he plans to propose at the upcoming Southern Baptist Convention. Over the course of this episode, you'll hear Dr. Mohler explain what the amendment is, why he's chosen to bring it forward, and why now.
- [00:46]
C
We're so very honored to welcome Dr. R. Albert Mohler to the CBMW Podcast today. He is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and he's also a longtime council member of CBMW. We are delighted to have Dr. Mohler on the podcast to discuss an amendment that he intends to move at the Southern Baptist Convention next month. That amendment would stipulate that churches that cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention must not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor, elder, or overseer, such as preaching to the assembled congregation. That's the language of the proposed amendment. He's also going to move that we suspend a rule that would delay debate on the motion for at least a year so the suspension of the rule will keep it so that we could debate it right there in 2026 next month. So people who are in favor of this amendment would need to vote first to suspend the rule. And that's just a simple majority vote. We've done that before. It happened last year. And then second, if you the people would need to vote in a supermajority 66% this year and next year to make it a part of the SBC constitution. So, Dr. Mohler, thank you so much for joining us to talk about your proposal today. And my first question is really simple. It's just this why this amendment and why now?
- [02:09]
D
Well, I think the two questions are both important. I'm going to take the why now first, and the why now is because at certain points in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention, an issue arises in which it's clear the convention needs to settle its mind on this issue and to settle its policy on this issue so that it is a very clear way forward for Southern Baptists together. To put it another way, this is an issue that has proved its urgency by coming up again and again and again and again. Now, it hasn't come up again and again and again in a crisis mode. It has come up in a polity, in a procedural way, but that shows a weakness that needs to be addressed. And thus the issue of the constitutional amendment, putting the proposal I have put forward, putting that into the SPC Constitution, means that the SBC doesn't have to debate this further, doesn't have to have an ongoing controversy, has a permanent statement that reflects the will and the conviction of the denomination. And my experience in the SBC is what causes me to do this. It is because a generation ago, Southern Baptist said, you know, the LGBTQ issues are such a scale of challenge, publicly and internally to the spc, that we just need to say that the Southern Baptist Convention is made up of messengers from churches that do not affirm, appoint, or endorse homosexuality. And so that was a very clear statement that came back in the 1990s, and it has proved its utility. It has not been an issue of controversy on the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention in three decades. That, I think, shows the way forward to resolving this kind of issue.
- [03:54]
C
So I know that you don't waste words. And in your amendment, you specify that both office and function of a pastor are limited to qualified members, men. It's a little bit different than previous efforts that we've had at amendments. Why add the line? Why have both of those in there? And then what's the purpose of adding the line about women preaching?
- [04:18]
D
Yeah. So let's just talk about the issue as it's confronted. Number one, the vast, vast, vast majority of Southern Baptists are absolutely unified on this issue. So we're talking about something that is certainly something like 99%. I don't have the math, but it's so overwhelming in terms of the consensus of the SBC on the question of complementarianism, on the question of whether or not the Bible, the New Testament, stipulates an order for the Christian ministry. We believe that the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. But it is also clear that in the intervening years, this is an issue that has come up because some churches. We're talking about thousands and thousands of churches. Some churches have shown up out of order, and thus the SBC has moved, in these cases, pretty expeditiously to deny the messengers from those churches seating at the sbc. It's just because this is our conviction. This is who we are. We do not want to go the way of mainline Protestantism. Just over a period of time, becoming a convention that has a mild conviction on this, then an equal conviction on this, and then no conviction on this. We can see exactly where mainline Protestantism has gone. And that's not where Southern Baptists are. That's not where Southern Baptists want to go when it comes to the language. You understand that the office of pastor and Baptist polity has always been both office and function. It's not been separated because it's not separable. And so we put function in because, look, there are people who would say, look, we'll just do the same thing, but we'll call pastors by another name, as if that solves the problem. It doesn't. I think we all understand that. So how would we see it? Well, the most visible way that this problem would, I think, subvert the confessional integrity of the Southern Baptist Convention and our churches is if a woman is preaching to the assembled congregation. That is absolutely central to the understanding of pastor, elder, overseer, and I think it's just incredibly clarifying.
- [06:24]
C
So, Dr. Mohler, I do want to anticipate some objections, and they kind of relate to what you just talked about there. And I've heard some of these things coming from folks. One of them has to do with that word function. Some people are concerned that the language of function is going to be used against the church that has a female children's minister or a female women's ministry director or the like. And so it's going to be interpreted so broadly that, that all these normal female roles in a church's ministry would be excluded. Things that we would have, you know, no, no objection to at all. Could you speak to that concern?
- [07:00]
D
Yeah, look, I, I, I think it's, it's presented as an honest question, but it's really something that requires a quick response, and that is that I, I, I think those of us who know the Southern Baptist Convention and its churches, those of us who have been a part of the SBC and its deliberations, we know that no such charges ever been brought against a church that has ever led to Convention action, period. Period. So in other words, I don't think Southern Baptists have the slightest appetite whatsoever to entertain such an issue or such a challenge on the floor of the sbc, ever. So I think the greatest point I can make is that the 2000 Baptist faith and Message says that the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. No one has since brought an action or a proposed action against the Messeng from any church on anything Other than a woman serving in the pastoral role in preaching, that has been the only issue. And so I think that's a false flag, honestly. In other words, I don't think there's any such danger. I don't think the SBC would entertain for minutes the idea that we're going to decide what the, you know, who can counsel whom in this situation, et cetera. That's just not children's ministry. All the rest. I don't think the SBC has any doctrinal interest in defining those things for the purpose. Obviously, we have convictions of those things for the local church, but for the purpose of seating messengers in the sbc, I think there's basically zero interest in going beyond what is given here.
- [08:42]
C
So, such as preaching to the assembled congregation there, that last cause that's kind of designed to specify then what the main function that you have in mind.
- [08:52]
D
The purpose of this amendment is to make very clear we do not want to go the way of liberal Protestantism or for that matter, even other denominations we think are wrongly ordered in having women as pastors of churches. And the most important way to define that is where the title's used or where there's preaching to the assembled congregation. Those are the two signals. And by the way, in historic Baptist polity, office and function have to be both mentioned or they have to be in the same person. So that's been really key to our understanding of the ministry going back to our confessional heritage.
- [09:29]
C
One other thing I've heard is this, is that, you know, we really don't have a problem. This isn't really an issue in the sbc. People are just inventing problems for us to deal with. But we have had some pretty high profile conflicts on the floor of the SBC about this issue in recent years. Just three years ago, obviously you were a part of this. But the SBC voted over overwhelmingly to remove two churches with female pastors. One of them was Saddleback. Famously, both of those votes, all the ones since then, have resulted in about a 90% or more of messengers voting to remove. And so if the SBC is willing to remove churches like that on the floor of the convention, why would we want to do an amendment?
- [10:15]
D
Well, let me put it this way. When an issue like this comes up again and again and again and again, that's a signal that it's a structural problem. And so in other words, if we had other issues that came up year after year after year after year, where we say, well, okay, this year it's Saddleback and Fern Creek the next year, it's something else. Okay. A healthy convention does not operate that way. And furthermore, I think Southern Baptist has a very limited patience to put up with these issues coming on the floor of the sbc, taking up time and deliberation, and honestly, the attention of the convention when we're there to do convention business, I think if you look at the situation like that, you can say, well, Southern Baptists, every time they're presented with one of these situations on the floor, they deal with it. Yes. So do you want a parade of those every single year? Because otherwise, that's what's going to happen. That is what's going to happen. That means that every convention from now until Jesus comes, there's going to be the likelihood of someone bringing a challenge to a church on this issue. I don't think that's what Southern Mass want to do. I go back to the action in the Constitution. The SBC took on LGBTQ issues a generation ago. That meant we have not had to have the attention of the SBC directed towards challenges to individual churches, because can you imagine how many that would be? You know, especially given the changes taking place in the SBC at the time? Yeah.
- [11:46]
C
So what would you say to those who are concerned about legal issues arising from passing an amendment like this?
- [11:51]
D
Any concerns there as far as name a legal issue?
- [11:56]
C
Well, that the SBC could be sued for, you know, acting on a church. If you pass this and then a. And then the SPC moves to act on a church, that there'd be some kind of legal jeopardy there.
- [12:07]
D
Well, let me just point out the SBC you just pointed out has been doing this routinely. So, I mean, if we cannot determine our own composition in terms of the messenger seated at the sbc, then just give it all up. We're not an SBC anymore. There are others who are saying, look, they're very clear legal principles at stake. So that we make very clear the SVC does not have anything to do with appointing pastors. Now, that's true, but by conviction, we believe that only men should serve as pastors. That's just a matter of principle. And by the way, I don't think Southern Baptists are going to retreat from that at all. And so, guess what? You got the same problem. It's in our confession of faith. So, you know, all these things just, to me, add momentum and urgency to the issue. We need to put this in the Constitution so that we do not have to keep talking about this.
- [13:02]
A
Amen. Dr. Mohler. A lot of this conversation and Debate has been centered around what happens if this amendment passed or an amendment like this passes. Then what does that mean for the life of our churches and our denomination? But my questions are more related to what happens if this doesn't pass. So you've already mentioned a few times the connection between this issue and the LGBT issues. So there's a historical or hermeneutical, philosophical, even theological connection between women in ministry and ordination and the connection between that and LGBT issues. So what I want to ask is, what's at stake here? What are the risks that we incur if we don't take decisive action regarding female pastors in the sbc?
- [13:46]
D
I want to be intellectually honest, and as you know, I've invested my life in the SBC and decades of service to the SBC and experience in the sbc. I want to make certain the SPC is perpetuated into the future. I want to be very careful and not overstate the case. I do not believe if this fails, the SPC is destined to move into doctrinal oblivion. I don't think that's true at all. I think the spc, however, if we do not answer this clearly, is going to have to come back and answer it again and again and again and again and again. That's the whole purpose of putting it in the Constitution. It's not because we're going to change our mind on this, but because we shouldn't have to say this again and again and again and again as issues of live action on the floor of the sbc. I mean, we wouldn't do this on the Trinity. We wouldn't do this on, you know, Christology. We wouldn't do this on the Gospel. We don't do this on LGBTQ issues. We should not do this on the issue of the office of pastors limited to men as qualified by Scripture. We should just make that very, very clear. You do point to a fundamental issue. I would just dare anyone to show to me a denomination that has maintained its theological distinctives, its understanding of scripture. It's hermeneutic, consistent with that scripture and its fellowship after accepting women serving as pastors. I don't believe there is such a thing. And I believe it is because there's a New Testament order, and we. We've often referred to the churches of the SBC as New Testament churches. Okay. That's all we're trying to do here, is make clear what is a New Testament church. The churches with which we want to be in common fellowship and common work in missions and evangelism. And theological education. The New Testament Church is really clear on this issue, so we should be equally clear. The other thing is the hermeneutic of allowing, of distorting scripture, interpreting scripture, and I think, again, subverting the authority of Scripture to allow for a woman serving as pastor is the same hermeneutical pattern used to affirm the LGBTQ rebellion. And I've made that point for decades. I think it's one of the most thoroughly documented realities in all of church history. And it's because the hermeneutic is the same. If you can look at the biblical text and say, well, that can be read different ways, or you can look at the biblical text and say, well, that's not talking about what it's clearly talking about. If you can read the biblical text to say, yes, but that doesn't have to be foundational to our understanding on an issue of basic conviction, then you're just giving away the doctrinal fidelity of the body. And that's what I don't think Southern Baptists want to do. I'm confident that is not what Southern Baptists want to do.
- [16:29]
A
I think that's exactly right. Another objection I've heard is the concern about losing churches. So there's some churches, maybe even high profile churches, churches that sustain in a large way through their giving or cooperative program, et cetera. I mean, my hope would be if an amendment like this does pass, their faith and practice is brought into alignment with the rest of the vast majority of the sbc. But there is that risk. But I think it was EY Mullins in his article, the Baptist denomination is not a freelance club. He seemed to have an opposite concern, and I'm quoting him here. He said, no man can with enthusiasm give his money or his assistance in propagating what he regards as a fundamental error. In other words, aren't we actually at risk of a conservative mass exodus if the denomination doesn't take decisive action and doesn't make its position very clear on this issue? On the other side of the question,
- [17:27]
D
yeah, I want to be very careful and say, I don't want to predict either way anything like a mass exodus. I just, I don't think that's really. I don't think that's really what's at stake in this issue of a constitutional amendment, because it's a question of urgency and polity. So I want to concede that. I want to affirm the fact. I think the vast, vast majority of Southern Baptists on the convictional issue are clear. Let's ask ourselves the kind of question, what kind of church would leave if this constitutional amendment is adopted? Well, a church that would be out of fellowship on doctrinal grounds, I think we would say, well, that's inevitable. And frankly, without the constitutional amendment, eventually that was inevitable. What if the amendment isn't passed? I think there will be some conservatives who will be quite frustrated. I would plead with them not to leave the SBC on this issue. And I would go back to one of the main lessons of the fundamentalist modernist controversy in the early 20th century, which is you should not leave a body until it takes an action contrary to Scripture. That is the true test. When it takes an action contrary to Scripture, that's when conservatives need to get out. When you have to violate your conscience to be a part of it, or you have to fund what is opposed to your convictions, that's when you get out. And the conservatives were too slow to do that in most of the mainline Protestant denominations. And we've seen that pattern. So we should be very much aware of that. And so I want to say to my conservative brothers and sisters, we need to stay in this battle, because even on this amendment, if you take the amendment off the table, Southern Baptists have still handled this issue rightly, throw expensively on the floor of the sbc. So I hope I'm being honest here. I don't want to play into the arguments either way that doing this or not doing it is going to lead to an exodus from the sbc. If I thought that a sizable number of churches needed to leave the sbc, I would say so. I don't think that's so. I think there is a very small number, but a real number. And this is where some people don't want to face the reality. There are churches currently qualified to send messengers to the SBC who I think violate exactly what is at stake in this amendment. And we know that because, as you mentioned, Saddleback, Fern Creek, we have been presented with cases in which, yes, that's exactly what you're doing. This is not a misunderstanding. This is actually the truth. We have to act on it. I think one of the things, by the way, about the SBC is that over time, it really does have these issues settled in a healthy way. I think the timing issue is what's crucial to this discussion. I think we've let way too much time pass with this being an ongoing issue. The time is now for Southern baptism. It's still going to take two years. It's still going to take two years. So I just want to say urgency is we need to get this done so that we don't have to come back three years from now and have the same issues on the floor of the sbc. Wouldn't that be wonderful? I think the answer to that is,
- [20:36]
C
yes, that would be wonderful. I, for one, am ready to not have to talk about this every year anymore.
- [20:43]
D
And that's an issue of division.
- [20:45]
C
Yeah. Yeah.
- [20:47]
D
I'm happy for Southern Baptists. I mean, like, on the LGBTQ issues, you don't have Southern Baptists say, man, I wish we hadn't done that. You have Southern Baptists saying, you know, that was exactly the right time that just needed to be done. And isn't it remarkable that with all the denominations falling on this and failing on this, isn't it remarkable that Southern Baptists a generation ago, 30 years ago, said, you know, that's just not who we are. We're going to stand on the authority of Scripture, and that's what we need on this issue. People say, well, why? If it's. If the confession is good, why do you need it in the Constitution? It's an efficiency question. We don't need to have. These issues have to come to the fore every year. The efficiency issue is, let's be clear in our conviction, and let's just make sure the SBC can deal with the things that are of utmost concern as we try to lead this denomination forward year by year.
- [21:39]
C
Dr. Mohler, I have one more question for you. I'm thinking about all different kinds of people in SBC life who are listening to this debate and listening to these discussions. What would you say to women who love Jesus? They love the gospel. They love the Bible's complementarian vision. And sometimes they hear these debates and they get concerned that these debates are signaling that maybe their gifts aren't wanted or needed in SBC life. Can you speak a word of encouragement to them?
- [22:05]
D
My word of encouragement is, sisters, you are absolutely essential to everything the SPC is, and the SPC wants to be everything the SPC does and everything the SPC wants to do, and you have been from the very beginning. We're talking about heroes and heroines in the history of the spc. We're talking about faithful laymen and lay women and faithful servants fulfilling so many ministries. And you know what? I just wanted to push back and say, you know, this works out well. So forgive me a moment of institutional privilege, but I have served for over 30 years as President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. We made these issues clear as both of, you know, transparently clear, constitutionally clear in our own context. We did so, you know, going back now more than 30 years. And, you know, since that time when the seminary was in a more liberal phase, it had a good number of women as students. Do you know, now we have a greater number of women as students? We have a greater percentage in terms of the. The total enrollment of the institution of women. In other words, I think women feel very much at home, even to a greater degree than they did otherwise. And this is not an issue of ongoing controversy on this campus, period. It has led to amazing health and flourishing. I just want to say to Southern Baptists, why wouldn't you want this?
- [23:30]
C
Dr. Mohler, thank you so much for coming on and thank you for sponsoring this amendment. It's obviously something that I believe in, Colin believes in. And we are praying for the meeting that's coming up next month, and we're praying for you and grateful for you. Thank you so much.
- [23:44]
D
Appreciate the word, appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation. And I just want to remind Southern Baptists in particular, and specifically the Southern Baptists who are going to show up in Orlando, we need to get the job done partly out of our love for the Southern Baptists who are going to be coming to meetings long after we are gone. Let's get this right so that the issue is settled and we can move forward in faithfulness.