It's been a long time since I posted a blog. It's been an even longer time since I had been to a BGCT annual meeting, until yesterday anyway. I'm frustrated about how the business went down this time and I want to express it. However, I don't want to be negative or divisive, so I'll just vent a bit here and I won't have to worry about anyone actually seeing it.
Soooo, what's the deal pickle? Well, yesterday someone made a motion that the BGCT affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 edition. This is a statement of faith or confession of faith meant to encapsulate basic doctrines that Baptists hold. Throughout the history of Baptists, there have been many such confessions which served their purposes for the times in which they were written. The Baptist Faith and Message was written by Southern Baptists in the 1920s, updated in 1969, and revised again in 2000. The 2000 version was authored by a committee which included several members associated with "the conservative resurgence." In my opinion, the 2000 version of the document did a very good job of updating language and clarifying some topics in a manner that made the confession more relevant to the cultural context of the 21st century.
One change the 2000 iteration made was to actually spell out that, biblically, the office of pastor is reserved for men. It was also revised again in 2023 to say the office of pastor/elder/overseer is reserved for men. Over the past few years the question of whether or not women are biblically qualified to serve in vocational ministry has been a source of contention among Southern Baptists. I suppose it was inevitable that Texas Baptists would also deal with it as the BGCT, Truett Seminary, and many churches in Texas are in favor of women serving as pastors (as in the senior pastor of a church, not merely "children's pastor" or something like that.) However, a handful of individuals and churches still understand Scripture to teach that the office can only be held by men.
Back to the motion made in Monday's business session. The person who made the motion stated that the reason he brought it was simply so that BGCT churches who wanted to could partner with the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. He made it clear that for the convention to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in no way bound an individual church to adopt it. Local church autonomy would still be clearly in play.
I believed the motion would be rejected, as the climate of Texas Baptists has clearly leaned left recently. However, I thought the vote would at least be kind of close. It was not. I am upset that so many folks do not understand the Scripture to teach that only men can be elders, but my concerns are far beyond that. First of all, as I said above, the 2000 version addresses issues that needed to be addressed in today's world. For a person, or church, to ignore these issues simply because they disagree with one or two other things in the treatise is inconsistent to me UNLESS you are fully convinced that the work is blatantly heretical. However, few Texas Baptists really think it is heretical; they claim it is just a matter of misinterpreting a few difficult texts that are heavily nuanced. They claim it should be a matter of local church autonomy. I think they are not being honest.
I do not think they are being honest with themselves based on what I heard in the business session today. Essentially, in my opinion, a whole bunch of Texas Baptists who want to be progressive (and creative in their hermeneutics) are still butt-hurt about the conservative resurgence. They are not going to give one ground to conservatives even if it makes sense to do so. They are going to fight with their feelings and try to convince everyone around them that they have some kind of higher understanding of Scripture and we better not try to tell them otherwise.
The ironic thing, and the second concept that irks me about the vote, is that the moderates/liberals are crying foul without recognizing that they are the ones guilty of the crimes they accuse others of. They want to say that conservatives are violating local church autonomy, when they are actually dismissing it in their arguments. They want to accuse conservatives of being exclusive, when they are actually the ones drawing lines and shutting people out. Maybe I am extra sensitive because we have just come through an election cycle and I've been flooded with leftist political pundits doing the same thing, i.e., accusing the right of crimes they themselves are guilty of. Frankly, though, I'm really tired of that tactic and seeing it on display from some of my fellow Texas Baptists has left me frustrated to the point of not wanting to be a part of their hypocrisy anymore. {You may tell me to just leave then, but it is not that simple. I have a church to consider. I am not going to try to move a church simply over my battle fatigue. I will have to pray and see what God may do.}
Let me end with an illustration of my first problem, how can the moderates ignore the really good things in the 2000 document just so they can get their way about one issue (women pastors)? Article 15 updates some concepts about secular culture and how the church relates to it. The 1969 account of this article was solid for its time. However, by the year 2000 our culture was under assault from homosexual activism, Roe v. Wade had resulted in millions of babies being legally murdered, euthanasia was gaining acceptance, internet pornography (and other types) was ruining many lives and families, and we were still battling racial prejudices. As a response to these atrocities, the 2000 version enlarged a section as follows, “in the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.” It seems clear to me that in our current cultural climate, the 2000 version is much more applicable to following Christ in such a time as this. However, the moderates are willing to jettison important statements like that rather than admit that the Bible clearly teaches only men can hold the office of pastor. It turns my stomach. I lost a lot of respect for some people who spoke today and who voted against the motion.
Okay, end of rant. Maybe I feel a little better. But I don't think so. Not yet anyway.