The Southern Baptist Convention will soon consider final action on an amendment to the SBC Constitution stating that a cooperating Southern Baptist church “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”

This is a significant decision which raises important issues related to Baptist theology, polity and practice and has the potential to profoundly impact not just the Southern Baptist Convention, but the entire Southern Baptist denomination.

When the SBC Executive Committee forwarded the amendment to the convention in 2023, it did so with a recommendation that the amendment be declined. This remains the position of the Executive Committee and reflects my position as well. Here are some of the reasons for our position, along with some suggestions for a path forward.

Foundational agreement

The theological commitments which underlie the proposed amendment reflect my belief pastors should be men. When faced with the challenge of establishing church governance as a church planter, my choices were defined by those beliefs. We instituted church governance with only men in the pastor/elder/overseer role. Since leaving pastoral ministry, we have consistently joined churches that maintained this leadership standard.

For the past 20 years, I upheld this standard as a seminary president committed to teaching in accordance with and not contrary to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. While I have advocated for women in other roles, my consistent belief and practice for 40 years has been to limit pastoral leadership in local churches to men.

Despite the fact the proposed amendment reflects my beliefs and practices, my concerns about the following implications and consequences of its adoption lead me to oppose it.

Title or function

One concern about the proposed amendment is whether it applies to the title or function of a pastor. Does it mean a woman cannot use the “title” pastor, or does it mean a woman may not “function” as a pastor?

If the issue is the title, then churches with women called “pastors” can come into compliance by simply changing their title to evangelist, minister, director, coordinator or some other descriptive word.

This creates the problem, however, of allowing women serving as “teaching pastors” to become “teaching ministers” and continue to function in whatever way their church permits. This does not seem to fulfill the goal of the amendment.

If the issue is function, then the SBC Credentials Committee must investigate job descriptions, church governing documents, work records and personnel policies of local churches to determine if a woman is functioning as a pastor.

This is unsustainable due to the number of churches to be evaluated by a volunteer committee which meets once a month. It also places the SBC in the role of evaluating the internal operations of local churches—even including if male pastors are “qualified by Scripture”—a role it was never intended to fulfill.

Tensions surrounding autonomy

Southern Baptists believe in local church autonomy—an outgrowth of our convictions about soul competency, priesthood of believers and the sufficiency of Jesus to provide immediate access to God for every individual and congregation. We extend our conviction about autonomy to denominational structures as well. No church has any authority over any other church, and no denominational group has authority over any church or any other denominational group.

Conventions do, however, have the right and responsibility for defining the scope of their participation—in historic Baptist language, “being in friendly cooperation.” One concern, much broader than but related to the current issue, is the change in the SBC in the past 25 years about who/what constitutes the SBC and what defines “friendly cooperation.”

The SBC Constitution states, “The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of Baptist churches in cooperation with the Convention.” Note these careful and important distinctions—the Convention consists of messengers, not churches; and the churches are in cooperation, not in membership.

About 25 years ago, the first public list of churches in the SBC was created by the SBC Executive Committee staff as an administrative tool. Some have wrongly interpreted this as a list of “member churches.”

During this same time frame, the SBC Constitution has been amended several times to add qualifiers to what it means for a church to be in cooperation with the SBC. Over time, “membership” language has crept into our vocabulary and documents.

In previous generations, the SBC Credentials Committee evaluated the credentials of messengers to be sure they were from cooperating churches. In recent years, the Credentials Committee’s role has been redefined as an arbiter of whether a church is a “member” of the SBC.

This is more than wordplay. The shift from defining the Convention as consisting of seated messengers to consisting of member churches is a substantive change that is reshaping our identity.

This raises two important questions. First, how does the amendment relate to local church autonomy? Second, what happens when a church is removed from the SBC for having a woman pastor?

The SBC has the right and responsibility to define who can participate in its annual meeting—messengers must come from cooperating churches. The SBC also has the right and responsibility to define the actions of its entities. These decisions reflect the convention’s autonomy and do not infringe on local church autonomy.

On the other hand, churches have the right and responsibility to determine their leaders and governance structure. Churches can make any leadership decision they choose. But, if the amendment passes, those churches which include women in pastoral leadership will be removed from the SBC—by voluntary withdrawal or by convention expulsion. This is the tension that results when church autonomy intersects with convention autonomy.

Historically, the convention has favored local church autonomy and avoided actions which might imply or attempt control of the churches (SBC Constitution, Article IV). That precedent needs to be heeded in this case as well.

As to the second question, when a church is removed from the SBC—declared “not in friendly cooperation”—there are several striking consequences.

The messengers from the church will not be seated—or will be “unseated”—at the annual meeting. Trustees who are members of those churches must change their church membership or resign from SBC entity boards. The IMB cannot appoint missionaries and NAMB cannot fund church plants sponsored by excluded churches.

Seminary students endorsed by excluded churches must pay non-SBC tuition—typically twice the amount paid by a Southern Baptist student. SBC entity employees who are required to be members of a Southern Baptist church must move their membership to another church or resign from their job if their church is excluded.

GuideStone participants in excluded churches may lose their disability insurance—provided through partnerships with state conventions—and may lose other retirement benefits and protections tied to SBC affiliation. These benefits are defined legally, and exemptions cannot be granted arbitrarily.

Excluded churches can continue to attend the SBC annual meeting as guests, shop at Lifeway, invest through GuideStone and give to convention causes. In short, they function like non-SBC churches currently do now—presence allowed, business accepted, but participation restricted.

Legal concerns

Some of the losses mentioned above have legal implications for all members and leaders in excluded churches, beyond a woman who has the title or function of a pastor. Some of these changes and their future results—like loss of disability coverage and changes to retirement programs—increase the likelihood of litigation resulting from these decisions.

For these reasons, the Credentials Committee must document every step of its process, preserve every form of communication and seek legal guidance while making its decisions. If dozens of churches are excluded or removed from the SBC in an adversarial fashion, the legal risk may increase accordingly.

A related concern is the implications of these actions concerning the legal wall of autonomy which protects the SBC from being held responsible for the actions of churches. If the SBC involves itself this intricately in the internal operations of churches—inquiring about and making decisions about titles, job descriptions, service responsibilities and deciding biblical qualifications appropriate for local church leaders—it may be contributing to an erosion of the legal protection autonomy provides.

Some enterprising attorney with a cooperative judge may make the case that a convention with this much vested interest in the internal workings of its churches is responsible for their other actions as well. If that happens, increased litigation by and among churches and entities may be in our future.

Convention processes and procedures

The processes and procedures which will be used to implement the amendment may also produce other unintended consequences for the SBC annual meeting.

The time spent hearing the appeal and announcing the results about Saddleback Church during the 2023 annual meeting was just over 17 minutes. If reports there are hundreds of SBC churches that have a woman with the title or function of pastor are true, then those churches can now dominate future annual meetings.

If they choose not to comply with the new constitutional requirement, the Credentials Committee must recommend and the Executive Committee must declare every one of those churches not in friendly cooperation. Once that happens, these churches can appeal the decision to the SBC during its next annual meeting before a final expulsion vote.

Even if the time is cut to 10 minutes per church, if 25 of these churches appeal each year over the next several years, the appeal processes will take hours, and excluding churches will become the centerpiece of the SBC annual meeting.

Past precedent

All these processes and procedures can be adjusted or corrected, but it may be hard to do so while simultaneously addressing the issue. Since precedents have been established, it may be difficult not to maintain them.

The practice of amending the constitution to include issues like homosexuality, sexual abuse and racism has set a precedent which, for some, supports adopting the current amendment. But the current issue is different than past issues in two significant ways.

First, the past decisions narrowing the definition of a cooperating church—homosexuality (1992/1993), sexual abuse (2019/2021) and racism (2019/2021)—were intended to show our unity rather than define new positions.

Virtually every Southern Baptist church supports those positions, evidenced by the small number of times churches have been removed for these reasons. Since these narrowing definers were adopted, only 13 churches have been removed from the convention for any of these reasons (eight over homosexuality; four over sexual abuse; one over racism).

In addition, four churches were removed for failing to cooperate in resolving these issues. That’s 17 churches in the past 32 years.

The current amendment is different. It enforces an interpretation of our doctrinal statement which may result in the exclusion of hundreds of churches. This conflict at the national convention will likely spread to state conventions, associations and various other Baptist entities—like colleges, foundations and others. All of them have their own constitutions, membership policies, doctrinal statements, accreditation standards and legal requirements to meet.

These denominational entities are not owned, controlled by or accountable to the SBC and therefore must grapple with these issues independently and individually. Significant conflict may occur in some of these settings as the debates ensue. That has not occurred with the other issues added to the constitution.

Second, the previous issues—homosexuality, sexual abuse and racism—have a defined moral component. They are sinful acts clearly condemned in the Bible. Women serving in pastoral roles are not in this category. Gender leadership roles are a debate about interpreting the Bible, not about submitting to its authority.

Doctrinal fidelity

Proponents of the proposed amendment may agree some of the concerns mentioned so far are valid. But, for them, these are a price worth paying to preserve doctrinal fidelity. They will not be persuaded to moderate their position to enhance cooperation, avoid legal risks, protect polity, improve morale or preserve financial resources.

While they may regret conflicts and setbacks resulting from their position, they view them as the cost of standing for biblical fidelity and a more doctrinally pure, theologically aligned convention.

The debate about women in pastoral roles centers on biblical and theological interpretations about complementarian and egalitarian positions. Southern Baptists are decidedly complementarian. The current discussion, however, centers on what it means to be complementarian and if this issue should be a test of fellowship.

Some theologians categorize doctrinal issues into various groupings. My description of this (see my 2011 book The Case for Antioch) includes three groupings—convictions, commitments and preferences. Some also call these first, second and third order or primary, secondary and tertiary doctrines.

Using my terminology, convictions are doctrines which define the Christian faith. You are not a Christian if you deny one of them. An example would be the bodily resurrection of Jesus. These are doctrines worth dying for.

Commitments are doctrines which define denominational fellowship, cooperation or unity. This is what makes a Baptist different than a Methodist. Examples would include baptism by immersion or security of the believer. These are doctrines worth dividing over.

Preferences are doctrines that define local church fellowship. Examples of these would be church governance or worship practices. These are doctrines worth debating but which also require deference among believers.

The doctrinal aspect to the current debate over women in pastoral roles rests on an important decision—where to place gender leadership roles on a theological continuum.

For some, this is a third order doctrine—to be decided by local churches without regard to how other churches function. For others, the role of women in pastoral leadership is a second order doctrine. It defines what it means to be a Southern Baptist—on par with baptism by immersion or security of the believer. And for some, this is a primary doctrine or a test of biblical orthodoxy, meaning it reveals if you “believe the Bible” or not.

While most Southern Baptists agree Christians may differ on gender leadership roles—meaning they are not a primary doctrine—the SBC is now deciding if gender leadership roles will be a secondary instead of a tertiary doctrine. This is a needed clarification for some; a major change for others who believe this has been and should remain a tertiary issue.

We are deciding if gender leadership roles are a doctrine worth dividing over instead of a doctrine worth debating.

While some may believe the amendment is necessary to guard against the cultural slide related to gender and sexuality, keep in mind the actions of messengers in 2023—using the confessional statement to declare two churches were not in friendly cooperation because of their stance on women serving in pastoral roles. This happened based on our doctrinal convictions without the aid of the amendment.

Doctrinal conformity

Recognizing some doctrines as worth debating—but not worth dividing over—acknowledges the theological differences that exist, and have always existed, among Southern Baptists. By adopting this amendment, a new level of doctrinal conformity will be enforced across the SBC.

For proponents, the need for this amendment emerges from a conviction that greater doctrinal alignment is needed among Southern Baptist churches.

Most Southern Baptist pastors and church members view the denomination through the lens of their local ministry context and their personal belief system. They know how they interpret the Bible and believe most Southern Baptists agree with them—or should.

Some either do not appreciate the breadth of theological diversity in the SBC or, if they do understand it, find it troublesome or threatening. They want a denomination with greater doctrinal conformity.

Over the past 40 years, God has allowed me a panoramic view of the SBC. I have preached in hundreds of churches, spoken at a major meeting in every state convention and at dozens of associational meetings across the country.

In addition, I have spoken at churches and conferences for many ethnic or minority groups in the SBC. I was a state executive director for almost 10 years and worked with a diverse collection of more than 400 churches in the Pacific Northwest.

From my perspective, the doctrinal diversity in Southern Baptist churches, associations, state conventions and denominational entities is much more significant than most people realize.

For example, I have preached in Southern Baptist churches that did not permit men and women—even married couples—to sit together on the same side of the sanctuary and in churches with women in pastoral leadership. I have worked with pastors who are fundamentalist, conservative, moderate and liberal.

I know professors who are Calvinists and others who are anti-Calvinists. I have heard Southern Baptists describe themselves as Anabaptists, reformed, charismatic and all kinds of hyphenated combinations.

We have churches where only the King James Version can be used. Some Southern Baptist churches accept non-baptistic immersion for membership, consider all attenders as members, or reject any form of membership—thus no longer insisting on regenerate church membership.

I have consulted with churches that have a variety of governance models—pastor/deacon, pastor/elder/deacon, staff-led, elder-led, elder-ruled and those that use a church council or doard of directors approach.

When multi-cultural and multi-racial dimensions are added to the mix—including how titles and vocabulary are shaped by culture and language—the doctrinal diversity among Southern Baptists becomes almost too broad to describe.

Part of the genius of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and the historic polity of the SBC is their elasticity. We have practiced a broad orthodoxy, emphasizing cooperation instead of conformity as a hallmark of our success.

By codifying a narrower interpretation of one part of our confessional statement in our constitution, this may become a precursor to similar actions on other issues.

Many Southern Baptist churches are out of alignment with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 on issues like regenerate church membership, Lord’s Supper practices, mode and purpose of baptism, democratic church government, church/state relationships and more. Many Southern Baptists disagree on key doctrines like the atonement or eschatology.

Some of these issues seem more important than the current debate, yet most Southern Baptists seem willing to tolerate diversity on these other issues.

It will be interesting to see if clarifying the parameters on women in pastoral leadership leads to efforts to enforce conformity on other doctrinal issues. My sense is those initiatives will not be well-received by many Southern Baptists—including many proponents of the current amendment.

Disengaging quietly

While the focus of much of the debate about the proposed amendment is on churches which will leave or be excluded after its adoption or rejection, I am also concerned about two other categories of people who may disengage from the SBC over this amendment.

Multiple pastors have told me that while they are not formally leaving the SBC over this issue, they are quietly disengaging. They are too focused on the demands of pastoral ministry to participate in denominational infighting over something they do not perceive as worth the battle.

For some of them, the missional value-add of remaining in the SBC has been eclipsed by the reputational conflict-subtract of association with our brand. In short, for some, the SBC is just not worth the hassle anymore.

My final concern is the potential impact of this decision and the tone of the debate on women across our denomination. The focus of this debate has centered on one phrase from the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (amended 2023)—“the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” There has been very little discussion of the rest of the same sentence.

The full sentence states: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (amended 2023) clearly advocates “women are gifted for service.”

Southern Baptists, including the same messengers who voted affirmatively on the proposed amendment last year, also recognized and placed women in important leadership roles.

For example, at the 2023 SBC annual meeting, 79 new missionaries—including 41 women—were commissioned for service and sent around the world. At that meeting, multiple women spoke from the platform, chaired important committees, and made motions as messengers.

Women executives and faculty members at SBC entities were on the platform and recognized for their leadership. And, perhaps most importantly, many women were elected as trustees of SBC entities. In those roles, women share the ultimate authority to lead SBC entities and, in several cases, have served as board chairs.

Women are serving and will continue to serve Southern Baptists as trustees, executives, professors and directors at our entities. They will continue to serve as missionaries, ministry leaders and program administrators of our mission boards. Women will continue to serve as ministers, deaconesses, chaplains, counselors, administrators, project managers, committee chairs and team leaders in local churches.

Women are gifted for ministry. It is difficult to imagine how we can move forward without their significant contribution. We must acknowledge and celebrate the important leadership roles Southern Baptist women fulfill in our churches and denomination.

A path forward

For the past 40 years, I have set aside my personal beliefs and cooperated with many churches and leaders who do not share my positions on various issues. I have worked in friendly cooperation with Southern Baptist churches I would not join as a member.

I have cooperated with others for the overall mission of getting the gospel to people who have not heard it. Many other leaders have done the same for me in the name of cooperation.

Being in friendly cooperation is not just giving through the Cooperative Program. It requires acknowledging significant differences while working together—all while debating and defending our positions—on our overarching, eternal mission of getting the gospel to people who have never heard it.

To demonstrate this commitment to cooperation, rather than adopt the proposed amendment, let’s pursue the following path forward.

1. Let’s use our current processes to respond to churches which clearly and intentionally operate outside our confessional statement, declaring them “not in friendly cooperation” when necessary.

2. Let’s keep debating the issue of gender leadership roles in churches with the goal of persuading churches to change their position or practices rather than removing them from the SBC.

3. Let’s persuade people about the unique role of pastors and the importance of preserving that title for specific functions. Not every church leader is a pastor. We need to do more than change titles, we need to elevate the pastoral role so that it towers above other leadership roles in title, calling, function and stature.

4. Let’s recommit to cooperation in pursuit of God’s eternal mission. We are a diverse, messy collection of churches with leaders opining on every imaginable issue. We must celebrate our diversity rather than striving for conformity, while doubling down on what the SBC came together to do in the first place—getting the gospel to people who have never heard it.

5. Let’s focus our energy on external threats instead of internal battles. Global secularism and religious persecution are increasing daily. We are dissipating energy and resources on infighting when we need to stand together with as many believers as possible to overcome true enemies of the gospel.

May God give us grace to pursue his eternal mission, together, despite real differences which have always been and will always be part of our movement.

Jeff Iorg is president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee.

Messengers attending this June’s Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis will cast votes on items of significant importance. The deciding second-year vote on the “Law Amendment” is at the top of that list.

The Law Amendment, proposed initially by Virginia pastor Mike Law, passed on first reading at last year’s annual SBC in New Orleans by the required two-thirds vote. According to the SBC constitution and bylaws, to make a permanent change to that document requires passage by two-thirds vote over two consecutive years. This is the pivotal second year.

The proposed amendment would be a sixth item listed under Article III, Section 1 of the SBC’s constitution and bylaws and reads in context:

1. 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:

6. Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.

I am firmly conservative and complementarian in my theology, and I wholeheartedly affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Article VI of the Baptist Faith & Message speaks to the senior pastor role. We are not confused. However, I believe the Law Amendment draws a line that points us in a direction away from our denomination’s historical polity.

I have three primary concerns about this amendment and its possible unintended consequences. Therefore, I am not in favor of it becoming a permanent part of our convention’s governing documents.

Southern Baptists throughout our history have respected differences of opinion on doctrinal issues for the sake of a shared mission. I sincerely pray we can capture that civility regarding this challenge. I respect views on both sides of the Law Amendment, but I believe we would do well to pause and give its implications thoughtful consideration.

I am concerned about whether the amendment is imperative.

First, is the amendment imperative?

Messengers to last year’s convention overwhelmingly voted not to seat messengers from churches that had either a lead pastor or a campus pastor who is a woman. It was the messengers’ clear affirmation of their understanding the Baptist Faith & Message 2000’s statement defining a pastor “as qualified by Scripture.”

The messengers’ vote also demonstrated the SBC has a healthy mechanism in place to address questions related to doctrine and cooperation. Collectively and collaboratively, we as a convention can—and do—address challenges without the need to modify our governing documents.

I am concerned the amendment could be unintentionally damaging.

Beyond considering if the Law Amendment is imperative, we need to consider the damage this amendment could do to the guardrails provided by the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.

Our confessional statement has provided doctrinal clarity and has served the SBC well. It effectively has provided needed parameters for SBC seminaries, its mission boards, state conventions, other entities and churches.

The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 committee was composed of brilliant minds, men and women.

Adrian Rogers, who chaired that committee, moved at the 2000 SBC annual meeting the adoption of the Baptist Faith & Message report with the following paragraph added as the sixth paragraph of the report’s preamble: “Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches.

“We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the word of God” (2000 SBC Annual, Item 112, page 76).

We’ve ardently maintained through the years the Baptist Faith & Message is a confessional statement—defining our distinctives as Southern Baptists—and not a creedal statement.

However, if we begin narrowly interpreting the Baptist Faith & Message through the Law Amendment and require—through the Credentials Committee—strict adherence by every Southern Baptist church to participate in a like-minded, cooperative, Great Commission effort, haven’t we begun “to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches,” denying their liberty in Christ?

The Law Amendment brings the SBC to the brink of becoming a legalistically narrow road that chokes participation, rather than being a Great Commission superhighway promoting missions and traveled by churches of all sizes and cultures.

Our historical Baptist polity is to trust the local church to decide its own structures under the umbrella of our doctrinal belief system.

I am concerned about the future implications of the amendment in SBC life.

Finally, if we take this step to reframe the Baptist Faith & Message and rewrite our constitution and bylaws to include the Law Amendment, where does it end?

Will the convention—or the Credentials Committee—then decide which “official” version of the Bible churches must use to be considered in “friendly cooperation”? Or that churches must adhere to a premillennial, postmillennial or an amillennial perspective to participate? Or that churches must be reformed or non-reformed to maintain their status?

Sound far-fetched? Hardly. Who would have imagined just a few years ago we’d be one step away from monumentally shifting our convention’s governing documents to throttle participation rather than grow it?

And at what point will we have thwarted the local church’s autonomy while continuing to propagate the idea its members have freedom to govern themselves?

As one of my fellow state executives said last summer, “The Southern Baptist Convention is organized to promote a mission not to police our churches.”

Regaining a reasonable perspective

Let’s zoom out a moment and regain a reasonable perspective.

The SBC is not on the precipice of collapse if we don’t pass the Law Amendment at this convention. We are not on the slippery slope of liberalism. Far from it.

We have boundaries in our confessional statement that serve us well and will long into the future. We have proven through the messenger process we can police ourselves without infringing on a local church’s right to govern itself and without making monumental changes to the SBC constitution and bylaws.

More than narrowing the field of participation, we need to look up and see the fields white unto harvest. We collectively and cooperatively must mobilize if we are to be a part of seeing some from every tribe, tongue and nation come to faith in Jesus Christ. We must lay hold of God’s Great Commission vision that unites us and drives us into a spiritually lost world.

I’m for that direction, and that is where I believe we need to invest our energy and focus when we convene in Indianapolis in June.

It is a joy to be with you on this journey even when the ride gets bumpy.

Randy Davis is the president and executive director of the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

“Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice” (Psalm 55:17)

Christians serve an active Creator who answers the prayers of his sheep. Of importance is the realization that God’s plan endures. While believers are called to proclaim their anxieties, desires, praises and pleas to the Lord, God determines the best course of action in every situation.

Those in Christ remain in awe at the power of prayer, as Christians continue to be transformed by the Lord and find the solitude and comfort he supplies through such actions as prayer.

Reformers’ prayer life

Scottish Reformer John Knox lived a faithful prayer life, one which should encourage everyone today. Known in history for his ongoing feud with Mary, Queen of Scots, Knox, a former student of Calvin, lived by his supplications to the Lord—a concept that made Mary tremble.

Brian G. Najapfour, in The Collected Prayers of John Knox, shares an account: “On one occasion, he [Knox] prayed, “Give me Scotland or I die; and the queen said: I fear the prayer of John Knox more than the combined armies [of Europe]” (p. 1).

A commonality encompassed the prayers of the early Reformers. Throughout Europe, the Reformers faced imprisonment and death. Prayers provided guidance, encouragement and hope.

Najapfour adds: “Troubles, then, should not become an excuse for not praying, but rather an encouragement to pray. … For Knox, therefore, what matters most is our obedience to God, which is expressed when we pray to him” (p. xlix).

Puritan John Bunyan defined prayer: “Prayer is a sincere, sensible, affectionate pouring out of the heart or soul to God, through Christ, in the strength and assistance of the Holy Spirit, for such things as God has promised, or according to his word, for the good of the church, with submission in faith to the will of God” (Prayer, p. 13).

The focus of prayer is on God, submitting to his majesty while praising him in thankfulness and marveling at his grace and righteousness.

It is important to focus prayers on the Lord, his will and his church. While mankind undoubtedly needs personal prayers in times of uncertainty, trouble, illness and struggle, prayers also should focus on the salvation and redemption of souls.

Christ’s role in prayer

Comforting to the soul is knowing prayers are through Christ and aided by the Holy Spirit. Often neglected is the reality the Holy Spirit guides our lives and prayers (John 14:16-17). Like Bunyan, J.C. Ryle, placed an emphasis on Christ’s role in prayers:

By themselves, our prayers are poor and weak. But in Jesus’ hand, they are mighty and powerful. He is our high priest and our elder brother. … Once they [prayers] are in the hand of our Lord Jesus, they have value and can achieve great things. … Jesus’ door is always open to every single person who calls on him for mercy and grace. Helping believers is his particular role, and their prayers are his delight (Do You Pray, p. 24).

The love of Christ is enduring and always provides hope in a fallen world. Everyone faces trials and tribulations.

Charles Spurgeon taught: “Ah sinner, when you cry to God, you give him an opportunity to do that which he loves most to do! He delights to forgive” (The Power of Prayer, p. 23). “True prayer is the trading of the heart with God” (The Power of Prayer, p. 25).

Prayers lifted to the Lord always supply the confidence needed to bear such dark days. Illness, depression and all of life’s troubles are no obstacles for the Lord.

While afflictions are difficult to comprehend, the Lord will see his sheep through these days, providing consolation in a manner only believers know so personally. The tranquility of knowing you are not alone encourages those in Christ to cry out even more to God in praise and thanksgiving.

Posture in prayer

Though prayer does not need to be complicated, we should handle it with care and perform it with reverence.

Supplications can be short or long, but always should be personal, pleading your need for guidance in this fallen world.

As believers, we have no excuse; we have great examples in the Lord, figures in Scripture and faithful servants in history who paved the way for us, sharing their struggles and lessons in prayer.

May we not forget the Lord’s words:

“And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore, do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask him” (Matthew 6:5-8).

*******

David T. Crum holds a Ph.D. in historical theology and is an assistant professor of history at Truett-McConnell University. His research interests include the history of warfare and Christianity. He and his family attend Christ the King Church in Easton, Maine.

(RNS)—In a House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing April 17 on antisemitism on campus, U.S. Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.), used a passage from the Book of Genesis to intimidate the president of Columbia University.

Allen insisted American universities teach their students about “what will happen under the wrath of God” if they do not support Israel.

Allen grossly misappropriated the 12th chapter of Genesis, in which God tells Abraham, who will be the father of the Israelites, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.”

At one point, Allen asked the Egyptian-born President Nemat Shafik, “Do you want Columbia University to be cursed by God?”

His question not only implied divine judgment against Columbia, but it also overstepped his legislative role.

Undoubtedly, antisemitism is a horrific prejudice that has led to appalling atrocities. It must be condemned, not only at universities, but wherever it is found. I commend the House committee for its efforts to address this issue. However, I strongly condemn the use of the Bible as a tool for shaping U.S. policy or for suppressing civil political debate in academic settings.

Misuse of Genesis

When political Christians like Allen claim divine approval for their ideologies or views, they engage in what can be described as spiritual terrorism, using biblical texts to instill fear among non-Christians. This fundamentally contradicts our Christian faith.

Growing up in the West Bank, I often saw evangelical leaders deploying the ancient words of Genesis in support of the modern state of Israel. This conflation created serious confusion for me as a Christian Palestinian.

Though an expression of love for the Jewish people, their quotation of Genesis approved of a secular state that imposed oppressive military law on my family and severely restricted my access to churches in Jerusalem and other holy sites.

Israel unjustly prevented my wife, born in Gaza, from legally residing in the West Bank and hindered my wife and me from pursuing our desire to launch a ministry in Bethlehem.

Many theologians and Christian scholars have addressed the misuse of Genesis 12:3. In Christian readings, the blessings promised to Abraham are fulfilled through Christ’s sacrifice, as the Apostle Paul teaches in his Letter to the Galatians. Jesus, the one and true seed of Abraham, embodies the ultimate realization of these blessings.

To enjoy the Abrahamic blessings, we abide in Christ’s redemptive work, rather than blindly support geopolitical strategies.

Abrahamic faiths

The harsh reality of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank did not deter me from pursuing my God-given dream. Guided by a vision to share the gospel, I founded Levant Ministries, dedicated to sharing God’s love throughout the Middle East.

On April 12, near Alexandria, the birthplace of Dr. Shafik, I addressed more than 6,000 evangelical Christians from some 300-plus churches across Egypt and other Arab countries at a prayer conference led by my dear friend Pastor Sameh Maurice.

In my address, I highlighted the plight of Christians in Gaza, including members of my wife’s family who are still sheltering at two churches in Gaza. I also consoled Palestinian families mourning the immense loss of more than 34,000 lives, predominantly women and children.

Similarly, I extended my prayers for the innocent Jewish victims of the Oct. 7 attacks, emphasizing the overwhelming majority of people in the Middle East are not antisemitic. On the contrary, we seek to live in peace with our Jewish and Muslim neighbors, striving to ensure justice for all.

Far reach of God’s promise

As a Christian leader serving across the Middle East, I am guided principally by the example of the Jewish Messiah, who consistently challenged misguided theological frameworks and denounced spiritual terrorism throughout his ministry.

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus condemned the idea of violent retaliation for disbelief, even among his own disciples, during an incident where the Samaritans denied him entry into their territories—possibly motivated by antisemitic sentiments.

When his disciples James and John suggested a deadly punishment—calling down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans—Jesus sharply rebuked them. He firmly dismissed any notion of divine justice.

This response underscores Jesus’ approach to overcoming prejudice and animosity through reconciliation, rather than through vengeance and violence. As followers of Christ, we must adopt this attitude of grace.

It’s important to recognize God’s promise to Abraham extended far beyond a mere strip of land. Manipulating Scripture to advance political agendas under the guise of divine wrath is a betrayal of our biblical core values.

By embodying the grace Jesus showed to all, including his adversaries, we honor our commitment to God in a world plagued by animosity and strife. This is our sacred calling as followers of Christ—a solemn responsibility we must fulfill as we live out our faith in a broken and divided world.

Fares Abraham, a Palestinian American born in Bethlehem, is the CEO of Levant Ministries and an adjunct professor at the Liberty University School of Business. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

As a pastor, I always looked forward to Vacation Bible School. It was a great opportunity to interact with the children and adults in our church, reach families in our community and share the gospel. It was one of my favorite weeks of the year.

That being said, there are some good reasons not to do Vacation Bible School. Here are just a few.

1. Don’t do Vacation Bible School unless you are ready to welcome children and families from your community.

Vacation Bible School is a great week for the children and families in your church, but it is also a great opportunity to invite children from the community to come get to know you better and learn God’s word in the process. If that is not something your church is ready to do, you should consider whether you really want to do it.

2. Don’t do Vacation Bible School if you are just going to engage people who already are working in your children’s ministry.

People who work with children every week in Sunday school or other children’s programs sometimes get burned out. VBS is a great time to involve other people in your church family who may not work with children on a regular basis but may be a great resource for that week and beyond.

3. Don’t do Vacation Bible School if you don’t have anything to offer the children after the week is over.

The week of VBS should be a good introduction to other ministries the church offers children and not just a standalone exception to an otherwise inactive children’s ministry. It is an ideal time to invite children back for Sunday school, children’s worship or other activities.

4. Don’t do Vacation Bible School if you don’t plan to share the gospel with the children and their families.

As great as it is to have lots of children participating in VBS, it is a lost opportunity if we don’t make an intentional effort to share the gospel in an age-appropriate way for children to hear and respond to. As a pastor, I knew every year I would have the chance to talk with children about their understanding of the gospel and see some of them baptized as a result.

5. Don’t do Vacation Bible School if you aren’t going to make it fun.

VBS is a great time of active worship, recreation and interactive learning that should be fun for the adults and the children. Where else do children get to play games and see adults in such an informal setting doing things they don’t normally do in church and wearing something other than church clothes? It should be fun for everyone.

6. Don’t do Vacation Bible School if it is just about the decorations and fun theme songs instead of teaching God’s word.

We cannot lose sight of the goal of teaching children the truth of God’s word through this week. It can be easy to get caught up in all the décor and theme and forget why we are there. This is where good teacher and worker training makes a huge difference.

7. Don’t do Vacation Bible School if that is the week the pastor or staff plan to go on vacation.

I always was surprised to hear pastors and other staff members joke they were planning to be gone on vacation during the week of Vacation Bible School. I was shocked even more to find out they really meant it.

VBS is a team effort. It is important that the pastor and staff are visible during the week so children can see people they see up front on Sundays working as part of the team.

8. Don’t do Vacation Bible School if you aren’t going to train and screen the workers to prevent sexual abuse.

As wonderful as it is to have involved new people working with children during the week of Vacation Bible School, it also presents a dangerous opportunity for those who want to abuse or harm children.

It is imperative that everyone who works in VBS go through the same background checks, screening and training in how to prevent sexual abuse as those who may work in children’s ministry throughout the year. In addition, the church should have clear policies and guidelines for workers that will protect children and minimize risk.

9. Don’t do Vacation Bible School if you aren’t going to follow up afterwards with the children and families who attend.

After VBS is over, every family who had a child attend should receive a thank-you letter, an invitation to upcoming children’s activities, and/or a phone call or contact from someone in the church. The more personal this follow-up is, the better.

10. Don’t do Vacation Bible School if you aren’t going to bathe it in prayer.

Our church has a prayer team that prays for the teachers, workers, children and families through the week of Vacation Bible School. It is yet another opportunity for people to be involved who may not be able to participate in any other way. Prayer is an essential part of the spiritual outcomes we hope to see through Vacation Bible School.

I hope your church will do Vacation Bible School in whatever way is best for your church and community. Whether that is in the morning, at night, with another outreach effort like sports or music, or even through the summer on a weeknight, it is worth all the effort it takes.

Vacation Bible School is a lot of work and requires a lot of resources both in terms of people and finances, but that is not one of the reasons not to do it. All of that pales in comparison with reaching children with the gospel.

David Johnson is executive director of Arizona Mission Network of Southern Baptists. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

(RNS)—I grew up in a conservative, evangelical Christian household and attended private evangelical schools where we pledged allegiance to the Christian flag alongside the American flag every morning. We would belt out “God Bless America” with gusto.

My teachers, classmates and I were attached to a somewhat mythological story of America’s Christian heritage. We were the type of sentimental Christian nationalists Donald Trump is targeting with his recent turn as a Bible salesman.

But the primary way we applied our ideals came when we voted like any of our neighbors. We didn’t menace American democracy. But today, at the other end of the Christian nationalism spectrum, is a more perilous style of Christian politics, presented by hard-line, programmatic Christians who aim to dominate society.

Situating Christian nationalism

If you’re unacquainted, Christian nationalism refers to how some—not all—American Christians blend their religious devotion with nationalistic ardor, aiming to refashion America as a Christian nation.

Some conservative Christians have begun pushing back on this phrase, claiming “Christian nationalist” is a slur, representing a progressive effort to make the idea of Christians involved in politics sound scary.

As a scholar who’s studied American Christianity for years, I can state confidently the term is not an insult. Rather, it’s descriptive: When people blur any religious identity with their partisan political identities, we call that “religious nationalism.”

It’s an extremely common phenomenon, occurring in numerous modern nations, from India to Turkey to Brazil. “Christian nationalism” is just the Christian variety.

Yes, some commentators do paint with too broad a brush in how they categorize or describe Christian nationalism. As with me and my schoolmates, some forms of Christian nationalism pose no imminent threat to American democracy.

The new breed

But there is a new breed of chauvinistic, theologically bull-headed Christian nationalists who might better be called “Christian supremacists.”

These hard-liners believe Christianity deserves a privileged space in American society—that Christians, being better than other human beings, should be entitled to a superior form of citizenship. They claim Christians even are destined by God to rule over society.

What is hazy nostalgia to the “God Bless America” crowd is an organized theological and political program for the Christian supremacists. They are deadly serious.

There are at least two major strands of Christian supremacy operating in the United States today: the highbrow Calvinists and the populist charismatics. Both groups are Protestant, and both have theological roots in an obscure group of Reformed (Calvinist) American theologians called the “Christian Reconstructionists,” who emerged in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Reconstructionists draw inspiration from 16th-century theologian John Calvin’s Geneva, a theocratic city-state where unrepentant heretics could be executed by a government that enforced orthodoxy.

Though certainly not representative of all Calvinists, today’s Reconstructionists have embraced a vision of what they call “dominion theology.” They interpret certain Bible passages to mean Christians must “take dominion” over every society and remake it into the kingdom of God. Today, they hold conferences with titles such as “Blueprints for Christendom 2.0” and talk about how they will help Jesus the “warrior-king” to “dominion-ize” this world.

Calvinist and charismatic

These theological intellectuals of the Christian far right are radicalizing more run-of-the-mill Christian nationalists. Reconstructionist luminaries today include people like Stephen Wolfe, a scholar with a Ph.D. in political theory who argues full-throatedly in his book The Case for Christian Nationalism that “Non-Christians … are not entitled to political equality.”

Like good Calvinists, the Reconstructionists are intellectual and systematic, imagining detailed programs by which Christians can re-Christianize America and, ultimately, the world. They hope their heady ideas will help trigger such a global crusade, while recognizing their high-octane Calvinist theology will never be everyone’s cup of tea.

So, beginning in the 1980s, the Reconstructionist theologians intentionally spread their ideas into other Christian communities and networks, sometimes with the more rigid Calvinist casing shaved off. They especially cross-pollinated with a rapidly growing segment of American Christianity that gets little media coverage: nondenominational charismatic Christians.

Charismatic Christians are those trying to restore the more supernatural dimensions of early Christianity—speaking in tongues, performing miracles and believing in modern prophecies. This is the world of next-gen televangelism, ecstatic megachurches and itinerant prophets. Nondenominational charismatics are the energetic, tech-savvy, insurgent populists of American Christianity.

Seven Mountain Mandate

Many of these nondenominational charismatics eagerly embraced the Reconstructionists’ dominion ideas, if not their formal Calvinism, giving rise to the populist charismatic style of Christian supremacy.

At the front of this pack is a pastor, sometimes referred to as prophet, named Lance Wallnau, who has taken some of these dominion theology ideas and rebranded them as a prophecy called the Seven Mountain Mandate.

Wallnau’s vision of Christian supremacy entails dividing society up into seven “mountains” or arenas of influence—religion, family, government, education, media, entertainment and commerce—and urging Christians to conquer the top of every mountain in their community or nation so Christian influence will trickle down into society.

These Seven Mountains programs are fueling many local conservative Christian groups to take over city councils or school boards, making the dominion program tactical and marketable.

Wallnau also is a leader in a nondenominational movement called the New Apostolic Reformation, which has helped spread this Seven Mountains prophecy everywhere within evangelical circles.

Not coincidentally, Wallnau also was one of the first Christian leaders to endorse Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign cycle. Wallnau is the author of some of the prophecies and theology that now customarily present Christian support for Trump, not merely in terms of achieving conservative Christian goals or choosing the lesser of two evils, but as a positive good, ordained by God to be president again.

Wallnau used prophetic propaganda to galvanize and mobilize charismatic Christians to endorse Trump’s election lies. In this sense, he was one of the principal theological architects of the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, and he even was there at the Capitol that day to speak at one of the instigating rallies.

Caution and call

This all goes beyond a baseless slur. I recommend to those Christians of the kind I grew up with that you might get over the sting of being labeled, perhaps unfairly, as a Christian nationalist.

Christianity is slowly losing its privileged place in American society, and I understand that feels strange, but you should be far more concerned about the real-life religious extremism burbling up in your midst, causing many to cross the line from “God Bless America” Christian nationalists to ardent Christian supremacists.

Some of the most beautiful and treasured parts of American democracy—the equality of all citizens, the separation of church and state, and freedom to believe in and practice any (or no) religion—are the targets of the Christian supremacists, who seek not comity but domination, not peace but a sword. They are plotting the end of America as we know it. Openly.

Matthew D. Taylor is a senior scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies in Baltimore and is the author of the forthcoming book The Violent Take It by Force: The Christian Movement That Is Threatening Our Democracy. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

As the echoes of the Easter Resurrection continue to reverberate within us, our hearts resonate with a poignant blend of sorrow and hope, navigating the intricate labyrinth of faith amid the relentless storms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

This sacred season of rebirth holds profound significance for Palestinian Christians like myself, both religiously and culturally, guiding us as we traverse the turbulent waters where faith intersects with politics in the Holy Land.

In the vast landscape of religious belief, particularly within the intricate tapestry of Christianity, the subtle hues of conviction often blur, revealing a kaleidoscope of interpretations and ideologies. Nowhere is this more poignantly illuminated than in the fervent dialogues swirling around the Middle Eastern crucible of conflict.

Recent exchanges among individuals grappling with Christian identity and its implications for the Palestinian-Israeli strife cast a searing light on the multifaceted nature of belief and its profound consequences.

Critically, the ceremonial aspect of political events, such as the solemn inauguration of officials swearing upon the sacred Bible, often underscores a pervasive shallowness in the embrace of Christian identity, detached from a profound, soul-stirring connection to the teachings of our risen Savior, Jesus Christ.

Problem of Christian Zionism

Like a bolt of lightning on this journey of resurrection, the contentious theological stance of Christian Zionism ignites fierce debate, asserting the establishment and preservation of the modern state of Israel align with ancient biblical prophecies.

Under this banner, many proponents boldly entwine religious fervor with political fervency, deeming such union sacrosanct. They cheer for conflicts across the Middle East, lauding trials in Israel, all while turning a blind eye to the excruciating suffering of our Palestinian brethren.

They justify this travesty under the false belief such tumult hastens the glorious return of our Redeemer. Yet, this perspective stands in stark contradiction to the very essence of the Easter message of redemption, renewal and restoration.

This leads us to a pivotal question: Why do Zionist Christians, particularly within the Baptist and Evangelical traditions, struggle to empathize with innocent Palestinian civilians—children, babies, the elderly—who endure unimaginable hardships, from starvation and homelessness to relentless bombings?

Should not the resurrection of our Savior instill in us a deeper wellspring of compassion and empathy, especially for those who suffer?

Critics of Christian Zionism passionately implore the Christian West to recognize the profound distinction between Christianity and Judaism as separate faiths with disparate teachings.

These critics argue supporting a Christ-rejecting Israel is not a Christian imperative, asserting the widespread ignorance among many American Christians perpetuates the ongoing suffering of Palestinians.

Christian Zionism, with its distorted theology conflating the modern state of Israel with biblical promises, has wrought immeasurable suffering and injustice upon the Palestinian people. This egregious distortion of Scripture has fueled the ruthless dispossession of land, the merciless demolition of homes, and the systemic denial of basic human rights to millions of Palestinians living under the heavy yoke of occupation.

A Palestinian Christian critique

We, Palestinian Christians, unequivocally reject the notion Zionism represents the fulfillment of biblical prophecy or divine mandate.

While we fervently affirm the rights of Jewish people to live in peace and security anywhere, we unequivocally must differentiate between Judaism, a sacred faith tradition, and Zionism, a destructive political ideology wreaking havoc upon our beloved land and people.

Our critique of Zionism is not a condemnation of Judaism or Jewish people. Rather, it is an impassioned rejection of political ideologies that sow division, hatred and violence under the guise of religion.

As followers of Christ, we unequivocally are called to embody love, compassion and empathy for all who suffer, irrespective of their religious or ethnic background.

The distortion of Christianity finds its roots in the emergence of Dispensationalism in the mid-1800s. This theological aberration gained momentum after the American Civil War, severing Christianity from its rich historical and theological tapestry.

Instead of embracing Christianity as the New Covenant, adherents of Dispensationalism relegated it to a mere footnote in time, divorcing it from its profound historical and theological roots.

Amidst these impassioned theological debates, we must not lose sight of the profound human suffering entangled within the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Innocent civilians, including precious children, vulnerable elderly and countless others, are ensnared in an unending cycle of violence and despair.

It is our sacred duty as American and Palestinian Christians to transcend theological differences and fervently advocate for a just and peaceful resolution that prioritizes the inherent dignity, security and well-being of all those embroiled in this tragic conflict.

May the sacred echoes of the Easter Resurrection inspire us to deepen our understanding, cultivate empathy and work toward a future where compassion and justice prevail in the Holy Land.

Jack Nassar is a Palestinian Christian based in Ramallah. He holds an MA in political communications from Goldsmiths University in London and possesses expertise across sectors, driving positive change. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

(RNS)—Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s flagship seminary, recently made comments that drew cheers from abortion abolitionists, a movement of abortion opponents who believe women who get abortions should be prosecuted under the law.

Abortion abolitionists, a movement that has been around since at least 2011, distinguish themselves from the larger pro-life movement, which coalesced around Roe v. Wade, the ruling that legalized abortion through all three stages of pregnancy until being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022.

The mainstream pro-life movement, which includes numerous national and international organizations, does not believe in punishing women who get abortions.

But in the March 15 episode of his podcast, “The Briefing,” Mohler praised the abolitionists’ view that “all persons who are morally and criminally responsible for abortion should be prosecuted,” including the women who have abortions.

“I think this is an embarrassing shortfall on the part of many who call themselves pro-life,” Mohler said, “where they have just decided to exempt women seeking abortions from really any moral accountability.”

While Mohler’s remarks carefully elided any distinction between “moral accountability” and legal prosecution, they whipped abolitionists into a frenzy. “Let’s go,” posted one, as though the discussion over prosecuting women who seek abortions is a sports competition. “You love to see it,” exulted another. A more egalitarian abolitionist argued “both parents should die.”

Consistent application

On the surface, it might seem, in order to hold the view elective abortion unjustly deprives an innocent human being of life, one must logically count that act as murder and punish accordingly.

But the natures of human relationships, community norms and social imaginaries have a logic all their own.

Those who believe in the sanctity of unborn human life and who believe life should be protected under the law need not feel pressured or embarrassed about wanting to cultivate a more expansive vision of justice and mercy that is life-affirming for both mother and child and takes into account the embodied nature of human reproduction in our laws.

Indeed, as even Mohler points out, the law makes all kinds of distinctions and exemptions and even makes room for amnesty.

Chattel slavery, for example, which entailed countless murders, rapes and tortures, is one of the greatest human evils enshrined by law and defended to the point of civil war. Yet, slave owners were not prosecuted for their sins, including murder. Some even got reparations.

I even know of a Christian denomination, the largest one in America, that was founded for the express purpose of defending slavery.

Where suicide—once called self-murder—is against the law, those who attempt it and fail are not tried, imprisoned or executed, but are offered help and assistance.

The same principle is applied in all cases of self-harm and self-mutilation. While the child carried by a pregnant woman is a complete, whole, individual human being, that being is connected to her body. This is a physical and biological reality. It means the child cannot be helped or protected without supporting the mother, too. The child’s body is surrounded by the mother’s body, which is surrounded by a social and relational world that either supports her or traps her.

Shared accountability

As the pro-life speaker and author Frederica Mathewes-Green famously put it: “No woman wants an abortion like she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion like an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”

It should not be surprising someone who felt trapped and suddenly feels free might shout.

The sense of feeling trapped by pregnancy does not originate as much within the woman as it does from her surrounding circumstances—whether her family, her community, her relationships, her economic situation, her health or her support networks.

Abortion is a failure, not just of individuals, but also of the village.

In fact, data from the Southern Baptist’s own research arm indicates many women in the church who have had abortions (7 in 10 women who have had abortions identify as Christian) find a lack of grace and support from the church. It also has been reported 1 in 3 women who attend a Southern Baptist church have had an abortion.

When 1 in 3 women within a denomination have committed a sin their denominational leaders say they should be prosecuted and even imprisoned for, we have a problem much larger than that of individual moral failing. This is a cultural and systemic problem.

True accountability requires communal accountability.

Seriousness of sin

Christians often critique the modernist worldview that exalts the notion of radical autonomy. Yet, punishing the woman whose circumstances make her believe abortion is her best option reinforces the idea she is a radically autonomous being acting on her own apart from the formation of culture and her culture’s norms and laws. This view stands starkly against the teaching of the Bible from the Hebrew Scriptures through the New Testament.

The medical establishment that approves of abortion on demand, the politicians and judges who have enshrined it in law, and our impoverished social imaginary all have served to malform our consciences in regard to unborn human life for generations now.

When societies come to grips with those wrongs and seek redress, prevention and accountability through new laws, they must do so while balancing the interests of mercy and justice and those of social order and individual responsibility.

Human cultures throughout history have legalized and normalized countless moral and social evils. Indeed, the Southern Baptist Convention has changed its stances on abortion over the decades. And like the women Mohler decries for “shouting” their abortions, his institution “shouts” its slave-owning founders to this day.

Human laws and rationalizations prove to be quite elastic when necessary. This isn’t a matter of not taking sin seriously. To the contrary, it is taking sin more seriously, because we understand just how deep and wide it runs.

Karen Swallow Prior was research professor of English and Christianity and Culture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and is the author of several books. The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author.

Christians are not called to a life of fame, worldly greatness and fortune. Jesus is calling us to live what we know is right, to step out and do what we say we believe, to live our faith.

One person who acts on his or her beliefs is worth more than 10,000 with beliefs they only chatter and babble about.

We should be people of integrity and action. What we say and what we do should be synonymous. There should be no difference between what we say we believe and how we live.

Saying one thing, doing another

Most people’s actual lives and beliefs are not in sync. That also goes for Christians.

Think of all the largest corporations. They have slogans, mottos and logos about making our world better, serving our nation and working today for a better tomorrow.

They say you—their customers—and your well-being, safety and happiness are their top priorities, while their stockholders and CEOs grab and pocket as much of your wealth as they possibly can.

Think of all the world’s governments that talk of peace and meet in the name of peace and cooperation, while they keep spying on one another and spending their countries more into debt, buying weapons of war instead of plowshares for peace.

And there are those strident voices for peace who simultaneously laud the strength of their armies and subsidize huge corporations devoted to war and death, and export those weapons to other “peace-loving” nations.

Think of the Christians who say God’s love and love for their fellow man is the cornerstone of their beliefs, while they criticize and wag their fingers at those with different beliefs, talk negatively about their neighbors, yell at the driver who cuts in, neglect the emotional needs of their children, and daily whiz by the homeless on their way to the mall.

Most everyone believes no one should die of starvation, live in abject poverty, or live without access to proper medical care and clean water.

It has been said extreme poverty and much sickness could be erased from the Earth overnight if we would turn our creative abilities from preparing for war to teaching life skills and raising the living standard of the poor of this Earth.

Yes, we proclaim, publish and broadcast our beliefs in peace, prosperity, liberty and justice for all. Yet, we continue on with war, poverty, needless sickness, injustice and bare-sustenance living standards for much of our world.

“Never again,” we say. “The war to end all wars,” the slogan. “Peace on earth, goodwill toward men.”

Love means being in sync

Do you see? Do you see how rare it is for a person’s life to be in harmony and in sync with his or her professed beliefs?

Many call this being in harmony or in sync “integrity” or “alignment”—when what you say aligns with who you are and how you live. When those three notes of your life are played together, that chord will resonate and cause others to want the same harmony running through their lives.

But when what you believe, who you are and how you live are not played together as one chord, the result will be a discordant sound that may rattle the bones momentarily but never will bring anyone to life.

As Christians, the words and example of Jesus should reign supreme and be lived out daily through each of us. We are called to a life of compassionate service and to be a force for good in the communities in which we live.

We are called to love the homeless, the widow and the poor, to be a voice and advocate for those with no voice, to welcome into our circle the disenfranchised, and to love those whom others disdain.

We are called to feed the hungry, educate the unschooled, give shelter to those with none, and treat each person as the divine creation they are, knowing, “Therefore, but by the grace of God, go I.”

We are called to love those who don’t love us, even to love those who hate us, even when we feel they don’t deserve love.

There are those souls who do these things and have stayed true to the voice of their conscience, but they are the few, not the many.

As Christians, we should be known universally in every nook and cranny of this good Earth for our love, giving, support and compassion, regardless of nationality, religion, color or political affiliation.

We are called first to love. Anything and everything else is secondary (Matthew 22:37-41).

Robert Ritzenhein, after retiring from full-time missionary service, volunteers at Friends Shizuoka in Japan, organizing Christian programs for area rest homes, and is the yearly Santa at the city’s hospitals. This opinion article was inspired by his reading “Christians urged to answer biblical call to peacemaking” by Ken Camp. The views expressed are those of the author.

(RNS)—Is there a reason survivors of sexual abuse at Southern Baptist churches and institutions continue to show up for meetings of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination?

It is a good question, one I often ask myself. I choose to attend, even though it can be costly.

Only in the past few years have amazing donors, many we never will know, given to a fund established by Jules Woodson and continued by Pastor Keith Meyer to make sure we can afford to go to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention to advocate for ourselves and others, for change.

Why would any survivor go?

It is walking into what feels like a den of lions. What is supposed to be a loving, nurturing fellowship of believers is instead, for many of us, “a trauma-inducing machine,” as survivor Christa Brown has often stated.

Yet, for years, survivors and advocates have held rallies at the annual gatherings and attended the Executive Committee meetings, despite near constant pushback and even harassment.

History of harassment

In 2018, headlines proclaimed the #MeToo movement had come to the SBC and documented the work of Cheryl Summers in organizing the first “For Such a Time As This” rally and creating space for survivors to be heard.

But, just a year later, survivors were told they could not gather in front of the convention, were not welcome inside, were left in the extreme heat next to smelly dumpsters.

In 2020, amid nationwide racial justice protests and a national pandemic, the rally was a virtual one. And it felt then like maybe people were beginning to see a different side of things and waking up to the reality things were not as they seemed, that maybe more could be done.

While I missed those earlier rallies for personal reasons, I determined at this point I would not miss another.

In 2021, I went to my first convention in person, arriving alone and checking into a nearby Airbnb, hoping to lay low. At the convention, it was surreal and painful to see people who had been so awful to me online, walking around, speaking from stage, crossing paths.

But there was beauty, too. I met fellow survivors and advocates, people I’d only known online. I heard their stories of grooming and abuse. I found a small army of people who, to this day, are standing for what is right and good, who have risked any and all relationships or possible platforming within the SBC to stand for and alongside us.

Yet, the general convention believed us to be part of the “woke” agenda of “liberal justice” troublemakers. We were not seen as the wounded sheep Christ commanded his people to care for. No, we were the problem. The people were instructed to look away and, for the most part, they listened and looked away, but they looked down on us as well.

Promises of change

In 2022, I chose to go again, standing with other survivors who—despite the lack of movement toward any kind of meaningful reforms—wanted to give it another shot.

A loop of videos, made by Carolyn McCulley of Citygate Films, played in our booth telling our stories as people walked into the convention hall. We were now inside, and it felt like maybe people were beginning to pay attention, to listen to us. Many people told us they were following our work and voting “Yes” for reform.

Could it be change was coming from the grassroots?

The messengers were listening. People were attending breakout sessions regarding abuse in churches, learning how to become safer spaces. The sea of yellow cards voting for abuse reform literally caught our breath.

We were photographed at the moment it all seemed possible the people were voting past the entities and roadblocks. The real voices of the SBC were breaking through—the messengers, not the gatekeepers.

But even in that moment of seeming victory, the cost was so high.

Continued harassment

What we had to endure from those microphones, from some “pastors” and leaders, was beyond horrific. Over and over again, they insisted there aren’t that many survivors, sexual abuse is not a crisis, reforms will cost too much, all of this is a “sham,” and worse.

It was trauma inducing. And there are survivors who refuse to enter that room again. I really do not want ever to be there again.

And we all knew we still had an exceptionally long road ahead.

2023 felt like a step backward. The far-right was stoking another fire to distract from the urgency around abuse reforms, redirecting energy toward a debate around female pastors. This, they said, was the “real” crisis to be averted.

We knew what the strategy was, and it hit its mark. It was a heavy blow. But the messengers held firm on abuse reform and carrying it forward.

The far-right will try again this year with the Law Amendment, another public-relations move to keep everyone sidetracked, unfocused, unbalanced, unsure where the issues lie.

‘But I will be there’

But I will be there. Not because I think my being there makes a difference, but because I have made a commitment to myself and others to be there until it does not feel right.

I see their games, and their hope is we will give up. They are relying on age-old war tactics: Wear down your enemy, reduce their resources.

But survivors will show up, some for the first time. Like last year, I will warn them of how traumatizing it is. I do not encourage it, but I will stand by and with any who choose it as part of their stand. There is something to it, being present, to standing against it in person.

And there is a visual component for the messengers. When they see us, we no longer are just the enemy online they attempt to portray us as—the fascist, feminist, woke, liberal, problematic voices. They see we are human souls, real people, men and women abused as children, as teens, even as adults.

We are united whether present or online and we will not stop. We will find a way. We will stand with survivors as they come forward, with churches who want accountability. We will name names, we will keep track, we will continue to say, “Enough is enough.” We are an army of survivors, too many to count, so many still coming forward.

‘Still coming forward’

After the 2022 convention, a gentleman wrote to me. I read his story with such reverence, as we do when holding another’s pain.

He was 74 years old at the time and had watched the convention from afar that week. He had been following me for years, he said, and had cheered on my and other survivors’ pushback.

And now, for the first time, he had just told his family he had been abused by his pastor’s son when he was 12. He carried it in total silence for more than 60 years.

He said, “There are intrinsic costs I don’t see too many people talking about.”

He wished he had begun the healing 50 years or more before and wondered what his life and relationships would have looked like if he had. I think it is so beautiful and courageous he is doing it now.

Tiffany Thigpen is an SBC abuse survivor and advocate for reform within the SBC. The views expressed are those of the author. This opinion piece has been edited for length.

It is strange to write about the death of the Baby Boomers because I am one of them. Indeed, this article was a reminder of my own mortality.

While the implications of the death of this generation go far beyond church life, we who lead and love churches should prepare for this unavoidable reality. Here are seven brief reminders of which we are reasonably certain from a simple demographic perspective.

1. Pastors will do more funerals.

The Baby Boomer generation kids were primarily the children of the World War II veterans and their spouses. When the veterans returned from the battlefields, they came home with a sense of hope and optimism. That positive outlook led to a desire to bring children into this world. They created a population boom not seen before.

Between 1946 and 1964, 76 million Baby Boomers were born. Now, the demographic reality is those 76 million will die at a similar pace. Currently, 2.6 million Boomers are dying each year. That number will approach 4 million each year by 2037.

In other words, there presently are more than 7,000 Boomer funerals every day. In just 12 years, the number of funerals a day will be almost 11,000 (U. S. Census Bureau).

2. Attendance will decline.

While this forecast is not inevitable for every congregation, it will be a reality for many churches.

Baby Boomers overall are the most active church members. An astounding 71 percent attend church either weekly, twice a month, once a month or occasionally. To put it another way, only 28 percent of Baby Boomers say their church attendance is “seldom or never” (Pew Research).

We are losing our most faithful attendees every day.

3. Attendance frequency will decline.

Church Answers was at the forefront of demonstrating a decline in attendance frequency was the single most significant factor for overall attendance decline. Sam Rainer and I began writing about it more than a decade ago.

Baby Boomers not only are the most committed generation to church attendance, they attend with the most significant frequency. Nearly 4 out of 10 (38 percent) Baby Boomers attend church once a week (Pew Research). No other generation is close to that level of frequency.

4. Giving will decline.

Though the research is not always consistent in this area, overall, Baby Boomers account for about 40 percent of church giving (42 percent according to churchstewardshipnetwork.com). Again, this point is not inevitable for all congregations, but we do know a good portion of church giving will die with the Baby Boomers.

5. Churches will miss out on the greatest transfer of wealth in history.

Cumulatively, the Baby Boomers will leave a lot of money behind at their deaths. Much of it will go to their family members and other individual heirs. Another good portion of it will go to nonprofit organizations other than churches.

But local congregations largely are missing out on this wealth transfer for one simple reason: They are not asking their members to consider this legacy giving to their churches.

In the meantime, colleges, universities, parachurch ministries and other nonprofits do not hesitate to ask your church members for legacy giving.

How large is this wealth transfer? I have seen estimates range from $53 trillion (Cerulli Associates, New York Times) to $84 trillion (Kiplinger).

6. Innovation and change in churches will improve.

Our team has conducted hundreds of church consultations. I did my first consultation in 1988.

We have a plethora of anecdotal data and church member interviews where we see Baby Boomers often are the most resistant to change. Indeed, in some of the churches, the Baby Boomer members decided to close the church rather than infringe upon their personal preferences (Church Answers Research).

Many churches likely will have new opportunities to make needed changes for greater congregational health as the Baby Boomers fade from the scene.

7. Institutional loyalty will continue to wane at an accelerated pace.

Baby Boomers have been the most institutionally loyal generation since the 1970s to today (sciencedirect.com). That is good if the institution is healthy. But institutional loyalty for loyalty’s sake is not always good.

It is incumbent on church leaders to demonstrate why the local church is a place that can make a difference in this world for the glory of God. As the Boomers die, so will their default commitment to the local church.

*******

The Baby Boomer generation changed the culture, the economy, politics and churches due to their unprecedented numerical presence. Now, the Baby Boomers are dying at a rate of more than 7,000 a day, a rate that will continue to increase over the next several years.

Local churches will have many challenges as a result of the fading of the Baby Boomers. But, likewise, those same churches will have an abundance of opportunities. May God increase his power in those churches that are ready to make a difference in this changing world and culture.

Are frozen embryos in a fertility lab human lives?

When, in the process of development, is biological life recognized by the state as a person deserving of protection from harm by law?

Those questions have thrust Alabama again into the international spotlight. It’s the story you’ve seen and heard about frozen embryos destroyed in a Mobile fertility clinic and the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling this was a wrongful death. The Court ruled, by Alabama law, those frozen embryos are human—“extra-uterine children.”

Many cheered the ruling, while others charged it jeopardizes the opportunity of infertile couples to have biological offspring.

This story has caused me to ponder. Obviously, I’m neither a physician nor a biologist nor an attorney. But as pastor of First Baptist Church in Huntsville, Ala., I feel a responsibility at least to raise questions about a story so important to both my state and my faith.

Why is IVF suddenly at the center of the abortion debate? When does life begin? Should a judge cite the Bible and the wrath of God when issuing a legal opinion?

Question 1

Why is IVF suddenly at the center of the abortion debate?

In vitro comes from Latin and literally means “in glass.” In vitro in this conversation refers to fertilization of the egg outside the female body and in an artificial environment, as in a fertility lab.

The Mayo Clinic describes IVF in the following words: “During in vitro fertilization, mature eggs are collected from ovaries and fertilized by sperm in a lab. Then a procedure is done to place one or more of the fertilized eggs, called embryos, in a uterus, which is where babies develop.”

Women, in an attempt to become pregnant, sometimes take drugs that stimulate the production of several eggs which are, in the IVF process, fertilized. Fertilized eggs are frozen and stored until such a time as the would-be-mother is ready for their implantation.

Unused embryos either are stored (frozen) indefinitely, discarded or donated for research or adoption. There are an estimated 600,000-plus such frozen embryos being stored in U.S. clinics today.

Here is the crux of the matter: Are these frozen, fertilized eggs human lives? The Alabama Supreme Court answered, “Yes, by Alabama law.” Specifically, the Court said, “(Alabama’s) Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location.”

Since then, legislation has been introduced in Montgomery that “would seek to prevent a fertilized egg from being recognized as a human life or an unborn child under state laws until it is implanted in a woman’s uterus.”

Significant debates are sure to follow.

Question 2

When does human life begin?

Conception occurs the moment a female egg is fertilized by a male sperm. Plainly put: “Conception (or fertilization) is when sperm and an egg join together.”

I believe the moment of conception is when human life begins. That seems clear to me, both biologically and theologically.

“So, Travis, why do you call No. 2 a question? Didn’t you just tell us you believe the moment the sperm and egg (ovum) unite, a human life begins? That sounds more like a statement than a question.”

I phrase it in the form of a question to acknowledge not all agree with me that true human life, complete with a soul, begins at conception. Many make a distinction between biological life (which begins at conception) and human life (some prefer “personhood”). They would contend human life—personhood—begins at some later stage of pre-natal development.

Many suggest human life begins with a detectable heartbeat or with brain-wave activity. Some assert the unborn becomes human when the baby is “viable,” or can live outside the womb. Others would say it is when the baby first moves inside the womb. Many contend a fetus develops a sense of consciousness at around 35 weeks, and that is the moment personhood begins.

The lack of consensus among those who want to pinpoint a moment at which the fetus takes on “personhood” is noteworthy. It seems to me the burden of proof is on those who believe human life begins at some time after conception. And who has the authority to make that judgment?

I believe the matter is so grave that any potential erring should be in favor of the assumption human life or personhood begins at conception. To me, it is rather audacious to gamble that in the mind of our Creator life begins at some subjective point in the development of the child.

An intriguing question I have come across is, “When did Jesus’ human life begin?” Was it not the point at which he was conceived by the Holy Spirit? If his human life began at the moment of the miraculous conception, then it seems to me all life begins at conception.

And yet my position is not without its complications, particularly in the case of IVF. I understand those who would say, “It is not human life outside the womb.” A number of pro-life people believe an embryo in a fertility lab is merely the potential for human life.

George Annas proposed the following hypothetical situation:

If a fire broke out in a fertility lab and there was only time to save a visiting two-month-old baby in a bassinet or a test tube rack containing seven embryos, most people would save the baby without hesitation. Yet carrying out the test tube rack instead could have saved seven people, if indeed each embryo were a person (Waters and Cole-Turner, eds. God and the Embryo, p. 82).

Annas’ hypothetical forces me to own up to the complexity of this matter.

I’m not the only one who is torn. Lots of folks are torn between their anti-abortion stance and their support of couples having IVF as an option.

It’s complicated.

Question 3

Should a judge authoritatively cite the Bible, Christian theologians and the wrath of God when issuing a legal opinion?

I appreciate Chief Justice Tom Parker’s devotion to the Christian faith, as well as his legal expertise. I read his concurring opinion regarding the case of the embryos, and I was surprised he would use so much ink in a legal document drawing authority from what I would call spiritual matters.

For several pages Parker cites verses from the Bible, quotes Christian theologians Van Mastricht, Aquinas, Augustine and Calvin, and, oddly to me, appeals to the Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.

Parker raised some eyebrows with his own declaration: “(H)uman life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself” (Supreme Court of Alabama, SC-2022-0515, p.37)

Parker is not the simple-minded Bible thumper so many commentators have made him out to be. He grounds his comments solidly in the preamble to the Alabama Constitution, which states we all are endowed with life by our Creator.

And yet, it appears to me Parker confused the matter by bringing in so many of his personal religious beliefs. He also made lots of folks wonder how—and whether—his voluminous religious statements fit with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits both the repression and the advancement of religion.

Early Baptists such as Isaac Backus and John Leland are given a lot of credit for the First Amendment, and that makes me proud to be a Baptist.

I said earlier I believe life begins at conception. And yet, I wonder if Chief Justice Parker’s injection of so many religious citations into his legal opinion was appropriate. You probably can tell I doubt it was.

In the words of George W. Truett, “Christ’s religion needs no prop of any kind from any worldly source, and to the degree that it is thus supported is a millstone hanged about its neck.”

Travis Collins is senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Huntsville, Ala. The views expressed are those of the author.