I like steak.  Not surprising, since I grew up on a cattle ranch. I have a few friends, however, who are vegetarians.  When we eat together, I find myself thinking of many jokes I could make, including, “You don’t know what you’re missing.”  But I’ve learned to stop myself.  As my adult children regularly remind me, “Dad, you are not as funny as you think you are.”  I’ve also learned not to make jokes about vegetarians when I preach.  As best I can tell, both vegetarians and steak eaters go to heaven.

What does this have to do with the Mike Law proposed amendment to the Southern Baptist Convention?  Brother Law’s proposal simply reads, “The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work (i.e., a “cooperating” church as that term is used in the Convention’s governing documents) which: Does not affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind.”

The Convention has previously amended its Constitution to withdraw fellowship from churches that discriminate based on ethnicity and those that do not follow Convention beliefs about sexual abuse.  Both of these address issues systemic sin in congregational life.

Is it a sin for a church to call a woman staff member a “Children’s Pastor?”  Is it a sin for a church to call a woman worship leader a “Worship Pastor?”

Isn’t there room in the SBC for both those who eat meat and those who abstain from eating meat?  Aren’t there whole chapters in Romans about this?

Set aside for a moment the whole question of whether women should be Lead Pastors.  Brother Law’s amendment, as currently worded, takes a non-essential to salvation interpretation of one issue and elevates to a level of primacy.  What’s next?  Will the Convention dictate what translation you must use in preaching?  Will the Convention tell your church you must have elders? 

I have read Brother Law’s web site explaining his rationale for his amendment.  I respect his arguments, though I do not agree with them.  His interpretation works for the church he pastors, although I notice on his church website they have a woman who serves as a deaconess.  Even though the vast majority of SBC churches do not have deaconesses, I am glad he has the freedom to say, “This works for the flock God has called me to lead.”

Let us respect the autonomy of every church, knowing that God will ultimately judge whether each church is doing what is right in his eyes.  The Law Amendment is not necessary; Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is enough, with the affirming language in Article XIV, Cooperation: “Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people.”

This leads me to ask the most important question of all: Will passing the Law amendment bringing anyone to Jesus? 

Let the answer to that question determine God’s will for our convention.