SBC President Signals The Egalitarian Beginning of the End for the SBC
The President of the SBC can’t or won’t defend biblically-ordained male headship in the church.
In a podcast with Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Jason Allen, SBC president Bart Barber failed to offer a biblical defense for the office of pastor being reserved for men beyond “the Bible says so” and SBC tradition, and instead recommended grace for churches who are “still trying to figure out” how to apply what the Bible actually teaches regarding church leadership as if it hasn’t been clear for 2000 years. Don’t get us wrong – “the Bible says so” is valid, but necessitates a discussion of what the Bible actually says to be an effective argument.
Barber described three general positions on the topic of the pastorate being reserved for men – churches that are full-blown egalitarian and believe there are no gender restrictions for pastors, churches that believe and practice the biblical teaching that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is for men only, and a “middle ground” where churches may refer to women working on staff at a church as “pastor” even though the women don’t hold the same functional authority as a male Senior Pastor.
While Barber makes it clear that his church reserves the office of pastor for men, functioning with a plurality of elders, he describes the reservation of the pastorate for men as a “pragmatic concern”:
And you know, in 1 Timothy 3, I believe that you have God pointing us to the need for the church to have structure, the need for the church to have members who serve in structured leadership positions – what we call the offices of the church, – and at the church needs to be careful and deliberate in the selection of people to serve in those ways. Some of those qualifications are obviously spiritual and have to do with character. And some of them just have to do with pragmatic concerns about service in those offices.
Barber takes issue with churches that call female ministers “pastor” on the basis of it being “unfair” to offer women a “bait and switch” where they will apparently think they are full-blown pastors but still be subordinate. He characterizes the debate over women pastors as a modern concern for Baptist churches, claiming that churches before the mid-70s would have only had one pastor and wouldn’t have been concerned with what to call the “luxury” of additional pastors:
And I think one thing we have to acknowledge here is how brief that history is, because for a lot of churches today, but for almost all Southern Baptist churches in say, 1965, the idea of what terminology they use with regard to your second pastor would be similar to trying to figure out where you’re going to park your second Lamborghini, the churches didn’t have more than one member on staff.
Allen suggests that disfellowship from the SBC may be the proper response to churches that refuse to conform to biblical teaching:
I think we’re on the same page here. There comes a point where if a church or even churches fundamentally are in a different place and going a different direction, theologically, we have to say, “God bless you, we love you. We’re disappointed, but you’re probably gonna be happier in a different fellowship. And we are probably going to be healthier, more unified if you’re not in our fellowship…”
Barber laments the possibility, hoping that SBC churches are actually being obedient and are perhaps not using the same terminology the same way:
…and I think this subject is one over which we may have to do that. I just hope not over many churches. Because I really think that the preponderance of Southern Baptist churches – if we’re all using the same dictionary – can come to an agreement about what we believe.
He ends the podcast with a shoutout to his church’s female missions director and children’s minister:
God has so clearly gifted and equipped her to do what she’s doing that stewardship requires her to be doing what she’s doing. And I’m thankful for all of those contributions. And not only thankful for them – dependent upon them. Desperate for them. We need the faithful work of women, both on-staff and off-staff at our churches to help us accomplish the mission that God’s given for us. But we also need to recognize that there’s a biblical office of Pastor/elder/overseer that’s reserved for men who are qualified by Scripture.
Nowhere in the discussion does the President of the SBC provide an actual answer to the simple question that egalitarians present to the male headship church model: What is the reason for this restriction? Instead, Barber relies solely on “the Bible says so,” which not only fails to bring to bear the totality of scriptural teaching on God’s design for men and women, but it implies that God is arbitrary and superstitious in what He instructs his people to do.
Barber apparently believes women should be satisfied with, “You’re essential and needed, but you don’t get to lead. Why? Because God said so.”
In truth, God’s Word makes it abundantly clear why women are not naturally or ontologically designed for spiritual leadership in the church. Scripture teaches that a husband is the head of his wife (Eph. 5:23) whom she is to submit to and respect, that orderly worship in all churches necessitates that women remain submissive and bring their questions to their husbands at home (1 Cor. 14:34-35), that she should learn quietly, and she is not permitted to teach or exercise authority over a man in church (1 Tim. 2:11-12). Lest there be any confusion, Paul reminds Timothy that this hierarchical requirement is indeed ontological in nature – that Adam was formed first, and that Eve was deceived (Adam sinned knowingly, he wasn’t fooled like she was. See 2 Tim. 3:6 for further indication of female vulnerability). Eve did not overtly rebel against God, she was fooled into believing a lie. God’s design was for male headship in marriage – and therefore in the church – and we are reminded in 1 Tim. 3:4 that the husband is to be the head of his household.
Much like God designed men with superior physical capabilities to defend, fight, and win battles, He designed men with a complimentary disposition to defend, fight, and win spiritual battles. Men are commanded to lead and care for their households, and this command naturally and logically extends to the household of faith. A woman sinfully exercising the role or office of pastor has not only inverted the submissive order required in the church, but she has also inverted the order of submissiveness within her own marriage. She is giving into the curse described in Genesis 3:16 and is ruling over her husband. Men who allow this are following in Adam’s footsteps by abrogating their spiritual leadership role.
Why won’t the President of the SBC outline and describe this clear biblical teaching? Simply, because the world would be offended. His strategy is instead to pass it off as a pragmatic technicality (although he failed to explain the pragmatism behind male leadership) and hope that women will be satisfied with being told how important their non-leadership ministerial roles are. Of course, this has not worked for mainline denominations, who upon allowing woman pastors slid directly into further biblical deconstruction and eventually unapologetic apostasy. This clear historical precedent is why we are confident that a failure to biblically defend male headship in the church and home signals the upcoming end of the Southern Baptist Convention as we know it.
Absent a true doctrinal revival, it is not a matter of if, but when.
About Author
Google paying a brain blowing benefit from nearby 6850USD every week, this is sublime a year past I was laid-off in an absolutely upsetting cash related structure. “w many thank you google dependably for gift the ones rules and after a short time it’s miles my obligation to pay and rate it with everybody ..
appropriate here I began … … … .. http://www.richsalaries4u.blogspot.com/
2022: “There’s nothing wrong with women bearing the title of pastor, as long as they are not in the role of head pastor.”
2024:”We’ve been referring to women as pastors for years now. It’s absolutely hypocritical of us to not allow them to be head pastors.”
I’ve always found it very interesting how in historically conservative denominations which still have male leaders, leadership must never be discussed unless it is preceded by “servant”. They will preach many sermons about how Jesus washed His disciple’s feet in the upper room and say that in order to lead one must serve and leadership is never expressed with terms like “authority” or “power”. However, when the subject of woman leaders comes up, the discussion focuses exclusively on authority and “having a voice”. If churches actually believed what they said about servant leadership, there wouldn’t be any problem because the women would be serving, but these rebellious women don’t want to serve, they want to usurp. It’s too bad the male leaders don’t have more of a backbone to speak plainly about the correct roles for men and women.
Also, I think that it is a mistake to limit male authority to the church and family. The same principles apply outside the church and it is incongruent to say women can hold positions of authority in the civil realm but not in the spiritual/familial realm.
No doubt, many will say this is an indefensible view because of the lack of qualified males to fill these positions to which I say, “qualified men do not spontaneously generate”. Yes, there may be a problem with a lack of good men, but that is a problem we have brought on ourselves by failing to identify and cultivate men to be leaders. Our western society has become quite adept at conditioning everybody into believing that male authority is inherently abusive and selfish and this mentality has permeated conservative churches and para church organizations with virtually no resistance. I was listening to AFR the other day where I heard a commercial advertising some book or program to help daughters to become the “strong women God wants them to be” and I thought to myself how strange it would be to hear a similar commercial targeting sons. If there was such a commercial, I can guarantee you it wouldn’t emphasize “strength”, it would be “service” or “responsibility”. Women are told to be strong leaders in positions of authority, men are told to step down and serve, then we wonder why women are itching to take on leadership roles and men are largely passive.