Dear college freshmen:

A recent opinion article characterized your move to college as exile. I reject that characterization.

Exile is used to remove autonomy from a person—a neutering of their power or influence. College is the opposite. This is where you gain autonomy and stretch your power and influence. Or you don’t.

Most of you are entering a stage of your life saturated with new freedoms and autonomy. You’ve made a lot of choices so far in your life, but brace yourself. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

You’re about to open a menu of choices wider than you’ve ever experienced before. This is what makes college and emerging adulthood so fantastic. And you will get to—and have to—experience the consequences of those choices to a degree you’ve never experienced before. This, too, is what makes college and emerging adulthood so fantastic.

The gateway to this new, critical phase of life is simultaneously sad, scary, fun, exciting, memorable, traumatic, fulfilling … everything, because it’s life to a new degree. It involves every feeling available. And it should. Because while you will make some good choices, you’re also going to make some bad choices. And you sense that. And it’s good.

Growing in autonomy

The worst thing for you to do over the next few years is to avoid choosing. Ironically, that avoidance itself is a choice.

You’re going to hear a lot about forming life habits as you leave home. One of the most important habits to start forming is the habit of being intentional in your actions.

Choose deliberately. Own the consequences of your choices. Don’t avoid either. Don’t be someone to whom things happen, a person whose influence and power is limited by choices other people make for them.

If college feels exilic, take a look at your experience and your choices, or lack of them. More often than not, that feeling will stem from not making a choice, not from making the wrong choice. Reassert yourself and your Self.

The island you’re about to find yourself on is not an exile that will diminish your autonomy, but a new land where it will be amplified.

Mindy Ward is a licensed professional counselor and a licensed marriage and family therapist specializing in preteen, adolescent and young adult therapy. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

Tensions are rising over the North American Mission Board’s relationship with Texas Baptists. Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention will vote on the highly controversial “Law Amendment” at their annual meeting in Indianapolis next month. A former SBC seminary administrator has been indicted for lying to the FBI about allegations of sexual abuse.

All of this is nothing new, of course. It seems like the various Baptist conventions in North America are embroiled perpetually in some level of conflict, scandal or both.

It’s easy to grow cynical and decide serious involvement in convention life just isn’t worth it. Maybe we’ll stay nominal members of the convention(s) to which we belong. Maybe we’ll give only a little bit of money. Or maybe we’ll just leave altogether. But we won’t truly plug in and engage meaningfully in convention business, because it’s just too much trouble.

I must admit my own sympathy for this point of view. My personal disposition is generally somewhat pessimistic and skeptical. So, I easily can understand the myriad frustrations many Baptists may have with various facets of convention life. But I want to argue that at the end of the day, despite all of these valid frustrations, Baptist conventions still are worth the effort.

Why do Baptist conventions exist?

Colleges and seminaries. Hospitals and healthcare. Disaster relief. Campus ministries. Financial services. News publications. All of these are wonderful and important works in which Baptist conventions participate. But as beneficial and worthy as all these causes may be, they are not the fundamental reason Baptist conventions exist.

I could list all the various ministries and programs provided and/or supported by the BGCT, the SBC and others, but I want to get to the heart of why conventions exist in the first place.

Some might say evangelism is the core reason for Baptist conventions to exist, and this is half right. Essentially, evangelism is telling people the gospel of Jesus Christ and urging them to repent and believe. This absolutely is essential to the legitimacy of a Baptist convention. Without evangelism, a convention has no right or reason to exist.

But here’s the catch: You don’t have to be Baptist to do evangelism. If evangelism alone was the fundamental reason for conventions to exist, why exclude evangelical Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists and other non-Baptists from membership? We should have no problem partnering with gospel-preaching, Bible-believing non-Baptists to spread the gospel.

The centrality of the local church

Evangelism alone is not the reason why Baptist conventions exist. Baptist conventions exist to start and strengthen local churches, which are the bedrock of evangelism and missions, both at home and internationally. A Baptist convention is a voluntary partnership of various local churches, and those churches work together to support one another and start new churches.

As you read through the book of Acts, you see this constant pattern: As the gospel takes root in new areas, new local churches start, and then those local churches serve as launchpads for the further expansion of the gospel and starting of new churches.

Every letter of the New Testament is written to a specific local church, a group of local churches or a leader of a local church, and these letters were intended to be read aloud in local churches.

Jesus declares, “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” (Matthew 16:18 CSB). The Apostle Paul refers to the church as “God’s household … the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The author of Hebrews associates neglecting the local church with abandoning Christ (Hebrews 10:23-39).

Local churches—groups of baptized believers in Jesus Christ regularly gathering for worship, instruction, fellowship, accountability and evangelism under the oversight of biblically called and qualified officers—are essential to the Christian faith and the Great Commission.

You cannot faithfully make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the triune name and teaching them to observe everything Christ has commanded without local churches.

Baptists believe what the Bible teaches about the centrality of the local church. And we believe local churches both can and should cooperate with one another to work more effectively (1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 8-9).

We don’t have authority over one another, but we do recognize, by pooling our resources and helping each other, we can be more effective than we would be in isolation.

The crux of cooperation

This is why Baptist conventions reserve membership for Baptist churches. It’s not because we think non-Baptists don’t believe the gospel. It’s because non-Baptists have irreconcilable differences with us about how local churches are to function, be governed and more. We can’t plant churches together if we can’t agree on how a local church should work.

If planting and building up local churches is fundamental to the cooperative work Baptist conventions do, then it is important for us to be on the same page about issues like baptism, qualifications for church leadership and such. However, even among Baptists there are differences of opinion about some important local church matters, such as who may or may not serve as a pastor.

I am not a fan of sweeping, sentimental appeals to “unity.” This so-called unity too often is vague, empty and used to shut down important conversations about doctrine and practice. Sometimes, Baptist churches have significant disagreements on important matters and simply can’t work well together. In such cases, it’s best to go our separate ways lovingly and respectfully while still recognizing one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Of course, we shouldn’t rush to separate the moment cooperation becomes difficult. We need to have hard, honest conversations about our differences to see if we still can work together. It is not a solution to maintain the outward appearance of cooperation while also maintaining patterns of apathy, passive-aggressive behavior or manipulative politicking behind the scenes.

The work Jesus Christ is doing in and through the local church is too important for us to neglect or abandon our cooperative efforts. Why are Baptist conventions still worth it? Because starting and strengthening local churches is still worth it, and we do that better together than we do apart.

Joshua Sharp is the pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Orange, and a graduate of Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Mo., and Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary in Waco. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

The Baylor board of regents voted May 17 to amend the university’s longstanding mission statement.

The traditional formulation of “Pro Ecclesia, Pro Texana” now will include “Pro Mundo.”

The university’s president, Linda Livingstone, praised the change in this way: “Now that Baylor has risen to a Christian Research 1 university, we have an opportunity to shine God’s light around the world and serve others in even more significant ways.”

She went on to argue Baylor “must prepare [students] to lead now and into the future in an ever-changing global environment.”

At first glance, this change might seem laudable or, at the least, unimportant. A deeper reflection, though, will show why the change is misguided for two reasons.

Baylor’s always been globally minded

The first is Baylor always has been oriented toward forming students in the tradition of Christian service that knows no national boundaries.

Baylor’s mission statement reads as follows: “The mission of Baylor University is to educate men and women for worldwide Christian leadership and service by integrating academic excellence and Christian commitment within a caring community.”

Even more notable is the university’s long tradition of turning out, not just missionaries and clergy, but civil servants, leaders in education and servant-hearted business leaders.

I grew up in Waco and attended Baylor from 2006 to 2010. During my years as a Baylor student, the Christian ideals of service, humility and self-reflection permeated classrooms and the larger campus environment.

Baylor has done more to form my spiritual life, personal character and professional ethos than any other organization in which I was formed.

After leaving Baylor, I went on to earn degrees from two other universities and now have taught at several more. These institutions vary in size, region and mission, but none of them has the missional coherence of Baylor.

Baylor, like all institutions, has plenty to improve on, but its innate sense of mission is one of its strong suits.

Baylor should maintain its particularity

The second, and more important, reason the motto update is misguided is it obscures the particulars that make Baylor unique.

Baylor should serve the world, yes, but it cannot do it in a generic way. Baylor is a Baptist and Texas university, animated by the particular strengths and weaknesses that entails.

In the same way each person should serve his or her community by using God-given gifts as well as limitations, each institution of higher education should look to carry out the thing it is best suited to accomplish.

Baylor is many things: The oldest university in Texas, the foremost Baptist university in the world, and a medium-sized, family-like community in Central Texas. It is from those particularities, not in spite of them, that Baylor’s service to the world flows.

Baylor’s shifting focus

In recent years, Baylor, like many universities, has made the decision to prioritize standing in national and conventional metrics over and against emphasizing its distinctive identity. The university’s administration has made big pushes to achieve “Research 1 (R1)” status to increase external grant funding and to focus more and more on athletic success.

A “Research 1” university is one the Carnegie Foundation recognizes as having “very high research activity.” The designation is given to universities that meet a set of quantitative criteria in areas such as type and amount of research, external grants and Ph.D. degrees earned.

There are arguments as to how each of these things can benefit Baylor, but none of them touch the soul of the Baylor family.

Just as, for example, the University of Texas owes a primary debt of service to the people of the State of Texas, Baylor first ought to concern itself with the well-being of the Baptist tradition, Texas and the United States, and its own students, faculty and alumni. Baylor cannot be, and should not try to be, everything to everyone.

What makes Baylor distinct

It is not just our unique customs that make Baylor what it is—the homecoming parade, the fondness for our live bears or the nostalgia we associate with Dr Pepper hour. These are symptoms, not drivers, of the intense attachment Baylor people feel for our university.

Baylor can only achieve its most important goals insofar as it maintains its particular communal ethos. The reason so many of us—graduates, employees and alumni by choice—love Baylor so dearly is because it formed us in a way and in a style no other university could have done.

Baylor ought not isolate itself from the broader world of higher education. And Baylor people should not think we are the only community with something special to offer the world.

Being a good citizen and a respectable participant in wider society, though, does not depend on reducing and obscuring what makes us special. On the contrary, the more Baylor is itself and is comfortable being itself, the more good it will do to those it owes—the church, Texas, America and, yes, the world.

The ‘Immortal Message’

In 1931, as he was dying, then-Baylor president Samuel Palmer Brooks penned a letter to the graduating class. He addressed this message, soon to become famous among Baylor’s people, as the “Immortal Message.”

The culmination of the message goes like this: “Build upon the foundations here the great school of which I have dreamed, so that she may touch and mold the lives of future generations and help to fit them for life here and hereafter. … To you I hand the torch.”

During my Baylor days, I worked summers as a student orientation leader. One of my bosses then was fond of coaching us this way: “When we talk with prospective students, we need to put our best foot forward, but we need to make sure it is our foot, Baylor’s foot.”

To President Livingstone and the Baylor Board of Regents, I respectfully request we ground our globe-facing service firmly in the specifics that make Baylor the one-of-a-kind place it has been. Build upon these foundations, not just a great school, but the great school Baylor can be.

John Kitch II is a 2010 graduate of Baylor University and a lecturer in Texas State University’s Department of Political Science. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a “peacemaker,” but I did write an editorial about peacemaking last week referencing an earlier editorial I wrote about peacemaking. In light of those editorials, I should say that peacemaking sometimes … no, often involves saying hard things.

I have a hard thing to say. My hope is not to stir up a fight. We have enough of those. My hope is to generate more productive communication toward better relationships.

The hard thing: It feels like all some people want from us is our money.

I’m certain there were times my parents thought all I wanted from them was their money. Though that wasn’t true, I’m also certain my behavior—and maybe my attitude—supported such a view. So, it feels a little ironic to raise this issue here.

Even so, if I knew as a teenager and young adult what I know now, I might have made sure to communicate what I wanted wasn’t money but relationship. And, yes, sometimes I needed money.

As adults, sometimes we continue to send the message all we want is the money. Sometimes, we don’t intend to send that message. Sometimes, it’s exactly what we mean. Calling that out isn’t the problem, however. Not being clear and upfront about expectations and intent is.

The Baptist General Convention of Texas Executive Board was presented with this situation during its May meeting.

Money to NAMB

Reporting on denominational developments, BGCT Executive Director Julio Guarneri told the Executive Board about his “interactions with denominational leaders” at the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Mission Board.

“I have learned that NAMB will no longer fund any church starts of singly aligned BGCT churches in Texas. They will only fund churches in Texas who are affiliated with SBTC either singly or dually,” Guarneri said.

“Now, the reason that they give me for doing so is because the BGCT has not adopted the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Regardless of whether the sponsoring church or the church start, whether they adopt the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 or not, as long as BGCT doesn’t have it as our official [statement], they will not fund that,” he continued.

He then noted when BGCT churches in 2023 contributed $3.3 million to the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering benefitting NAMB missionaries and an additional $2.2 million to NAMB through the Texas Baptist Cooperative Program, NAMB did not ask to what iteration of the Baptist Faith and Message the BGCT ascribes.

Guarneri rightly thought the BGCT Executive Board, as fiduciaries of BGCT resources, needed to know the situation, “not to be contentious or divisive,” but as part of providing all the needed information for resourcing singly aligned BGCT churches to plant other singly aligned BGCT churches.

Money from NAMB

I asked BGCT CFO Ward Hayes how much money NAMB sends the BGCT and for what purpose(s)? Additionally, what stipulations does NAMB put on those funds? Have those stipulations changed, and if so, when and how?

“In recent years, we have received $300,000 from NAMB, with $200,000 designated for evangelism and $100,000 designated for church starting,” Hayes wrote.

“NAMB has told us that these funds have no restrictions beyond those designations. However, we have only utilized the church starting funds in support of Texas Baptist church sponsors that have adopted the [Baptist Faith and Message 2000],” he continued.

According to the simple math—though the math in these kinds of arrangements is rarely as simple as it seems—NAMB returns 5.5 percent of what it receives from the BGCT. That 5.5 percent has “no restrictions beyond” evangelism and church starting.

I asked further questions of BGCT staff, the answers to which will be reported in a later update.

Talking about money

Hard things don’t have to be said harshly, though they so frequently are. Hard things don’t have to stir up fights but, my, how they do.

It’s a hard thing to say NAMB doesn’t seem to have a problem receiving $5.5 million from BGCT churches when NAMB does seem to have a problem giving money to those same churches to plant more BGCT churches. It may feel like the kind of thing a person says who’s itching for a fight.

It may also feel pugilistic for someone to say it looks like all NAMB wants from BGCT churches is our money. I do not say “our” because I am a BGCT staff member. I am not. I do not say “our” because the Baptist Standard speaks for BGCT staff. As an independent partner of the BGCT, we do not speak for BGCT staff and churches. I say “our” because I’m a member of a BGCT church who tithes faithfully.

If that’s not what NAMB intends to communicate, I’m certain BGCT churches are glad to have a productive conversation that can produce a better relationship, understanding partnership and communication is a two-way street. Being upfront and clear about expectations for receiving and disbursing funds is a necessary part of that conversation.

Resourcing the mission

I’m certain one of the expectations is that avenues for spreading the gospel are multiplied. Certainly, there is agreement between the BGCT and SBC on that, whether the two conventions ascribe to the same iteration of the Baptist Faith and Message or not.

Having at least that expectation in common, the BGCT and SBC ought to be able to determine how to work together most productively toward the end of multiplying the spread of the gospel—even if it means we change how money moves back and forth and how much money is exchanged.

Some will say such a conversation will be unnecessary if the Law Amendment is passed this June, which will exclude from the SBC those churches with women as pastors in any capacity, and if the SBC Cooperation Group recommendations are adopted.

Maybe so, but as Guarneri has said more than once, “There is too much lostness in the world for any one entity to think they can finish the task by themselves. We need to partner together.”

We partner best when everything’s laid out on the table.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

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.

Dear Freshmen:

Congratulations on high school graduation and college acceptance, which are huge milestones and should be celebrated.

At the same time celebration is taking place, I wonder if there is another emotion lurking in the background—the uneasiness that comes with starting something new.

For the last 17 to 18 years, your identity has been wrapped up in being a K-12 student. This has shaped and formed you. Yet, walking across a stage, accepting a diploma and moving a tassel has ripped your identity from you. Now, you are forced to make your own way in the big scary world, and the first step in that journey for you will be found on a college campus.

A new identity

In some ways, going to college is like going into exile, except for the forced migration by a conquering army. Even without the direct correspondence, the biblical image of Babylonian exile is helpful for understanding what is taking place in life as a college freshman.

Every year, high school graduates from around the country willingly exile themselves to a college campus and, as a result, are faced with a myriad of fresh challenges and new decisions.

The freshman year of college, like exile, can be trying and traumatic at times, because for the first time, you repeatedly find yourself in circumstances where you are not at home.

One of the biggest challenges at the start of a freshman year is the challenge of self-pity, thinking, “I am not good enough,” or, “I do not belong here,” or, “No one cares about me.”

A tendency of this mindset is to shrink back into a place that is or was comfortable, to return home every weekend to a place where identity is secure and relationships already established.

While this may feel safe and good for the soul, it presents a challenge to becoming the most faithful person God would have you become. This attitude ultimately will challenge your ability to produce faithful work in college and will create a shallow and irresponsible view of relationships.

Jeremiah’s challenge

The prophet Jeremiah wrote a letter to people who found themselves learning to live in situations where they were not at home.

Jeremiah’s letter was written directly in response to a self-pity attitude. The people in exile believed God would not allow them to be in a place they did not want to be much longer.

As Eugene Peterson suggests in Run with the Horses, the wisdom of Jeremiah is a question: “Will I focus my attention on what is wrong with the world and feel sorry for myself? Or will I focus my energies on how I can live at my best in the place I now find myself?”

Jeremiah offers college freshmen three challenges: (1) build houses and live in them, (2) plant gardens and eat their produce, (3) and, using Jeremiah’s language, take wives and have sons and daughters.

Jeremiah’s words to freshmen are, basically, do everything counterintuitive to what the self-pity mindset would encourage. Instead of shrinking back to “home,” create “home” where you find yourself.

Live where you live

In his challenge to “build houses and live in them,” Jeremiah tells you to focus on life right where you find yourself.

Human tendency is to have an idealized view of the past—the “good old days,” an overly optimistic view of the future, and a less-than-optimal, maybe even pessimistic, view of the present.

Jeremiah’s challenge to you is not to sit around wishing for the “good old days” or your future and career, but rather to find the value and meaning in life right now, right where life is. A key to the freshman journey is discovering your life matters as much right now as it did or will in future days.

Take care of yourself

In discovering the value in your life right now, Jeremiah’s next step in the process is to plant gardens and eat their produce.

Planting takes time, patience and faith. All three are key elements to the freshman year—the time to adjust, the patience to own the adjustment and the faith God is there amid the new.

A garden produces fruits and vegetables, things that provide valuable nutrients for life. A college freshman must learn what it takes to produce healthy and nutritious things for their lives in a new environment.

Foster community

The final word Jeremiah offers you is to “take wives and have sons and daughters.”

First, Jeremiah is not saying you need to start a family by the end of freshman year. However, Jeremiah is saying family is deeply important in a new place.

Jeremiah did not have the English word “community,” but he wanted people in exile to understand community matters in times of change. Community matters for you.

Our tendency in times of change is to keep ourselves aloof from people, but the witness of Scripture is we cannot be fully who God wants us to be apart from relating to others.

The challenge I want to leave you with is this: Settle down and discover what it means to be God’s child on a college campus. This just might be the most fruitful, creative and trajectory-setting moment of your life. Trust your identity will not be lost but, rather, truly discovered.

College can be a place where you learn how to pray in deeper more life-changing ways than ever. I am confident you will recognize the incredible value of Scripture, and ultimately, as Eugene Peterson reminds us, God will be found in the midst of the journey.

These next few years you are in college will form you, whether you want them to or not. I challenge you to allow your faith to be formed in the crucible of college.

Nathan Mahand is Baptist Student Ministries director at Houston Christian University.

When I was a young child, my German grandmother told me all you can hope to be in life is a good man. When I turned 18, that same grandmother told me I was no good.

For years, I kept trying to be a good man, but no matter what I did, I could not live up to those expectations. I never could live up to this image of a good man in the eyes of my grandmother.

Although I loved and cherished my “Hotzi,” her standards and expectations of her only grandson never were rational or even realistic.

However, my Texas-born grandmother had a different twist on life. She never told me to be a good man. Instead, she told me everything she was telling me was for my own good. Her name was Granny Jackson, affectionally known as “Gangy.”

‘For your own good’

I was born with a weakened and crooked right foot from complications during delivery. I was about 4 years old when I started doing physical therapy. There were times I would get so mad at Granny Jackson during the physical therapy I had to undergo.

I remember getting so furious when Granny said, “This is for your own good.”

Among other things she told me were for my own good were whoopings, homework and bedtime. I hated all those things. None of these of things seemed good to me.

We had to bless the food no matter how hungry I was. We had to go to church no matter how boring it was. “Church is for your own good,” she said.

How am I to be good man if I do not like all these things that are for my own good?

If we look at what both of my grandmothers said and blend into what God would have us understand today, then they both were correct. I am no good, and all those things Granny Jackson had me do or obey were for my own good.

Why did Granny Jackson never say I was no good even though I really am no good? Because Granny Jackson knew she herself and everyone else were no good, that only God is truly good. Therefore, God is for our own good.

History for our good

Before I echo the words of my Granny Jackson and tell you why God is for your and my own good, I must provide a brief historical background on Romans 5:6-8. As Granny Jackson would say about the historical context of the Bible: “It’s for your own good.”

The apostle Paul wrote the Book of Romans while in Corinth in late A.D. 57, near the end of his third missionary journey. Paul had yet to visit Rome, but he longed to meet his Christian brethren there. Therefore, he wrote to the Romans to pave the way for his visit.

Paul proves the wonder-working power through the Holy Spirit throughout his ministry to spread the gospel to the community and commission others, so they may preach it to the world.

As Swiss theologian Karl Barth stated in Church Dogmatics: “The community has to proclaim to the world the free grace of God and the hope that it carries with it. It has to declare to it that Jesus Christ, very God and very man, has come as its Savior and will come again. This is the announcement of the kingdom of God. This is the gospel. The Christian community does not exist for itself; it exists for the gospel.”

However, Paul was quite the uncanny proclaimer of the gospel, as his early life was something unlikely in contrast to the characteristics of a Christian apostle. Before Paul was the apostle Paul, he was the Pharisee Saul. Saul was very meticulous with his duties as a Pharisee, mainly pursuing Christians to persecute them.

Although Paul’s past is what made him the perfect apostle for the difficult task of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles, he was qualified fully for this office by background, training and experience.

His Jewish birth, his Hebrew language, his Roman citizenship, his Jewish training and his Greek culture all helped to make him the man he was.

Our weakness, God’s good

The first part of Romans 5:6 states, “For while we were still weak.” The word of God says we were weak, helpless, stranded and impoverished without God.

The word “weak” in the ancient Greek perks my interest. It means “sluggish in doing right.”

You ever feel physically sluggish after eating more than you should? I am a Baptist pastor, so I frequently find myself eating more than I should. Although Romans 5:6 is not talking about how one feels after eating too much at lunch, what Paul was trying to say is we are so spiritually sluggish from the start that we never could truly do right.

There was no way we could save ourselves from the consequences of our sin. We indeed were without strength and unworthy, yet Christ died for us when we were no good. By the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were delivered and preserved by his own life. We were utterly, absolutely and completely unworthy, but Christ died for us anyway.

This was an act of love beyond any human experience. Do you know of a love anywhere like that in this universe?

I couldn’t imagine what life would be if I didn’t have my godly grandma who taught me Jesus died for us.

Brandon Galbreath is pastor of Bethel Baptist Church in Ingleside. This article is adapted from the original post and is part of a sermon by Galbreath. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

Despite what you may have heard, peacemaking is not as simple as winning elections, passing certain laws, changing culture, growing the church, paying our debts, saying “we’re sorry”—just to name a few of the things people promise will bring us peace.

Peacemaking is more complicated than that.

If we can believe the news—and I believe we can believe enough of it to matter—the world is moving beyond conflicted to fractious. In such times, it is imperative that we who identify with Christ take on the complicated and necessary business of peacemaking.

Peace, if possible

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all people.”

Paul wrote that. Paul, the apostle we love to quote and memorize, the apostle whose writing systematizes so much Christian theology. That Paul.

Along with his exhortation to be at peace with all people, Paul instructed: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. … Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never repay evil for evil to anyone. … If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all people. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written: ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. ‘But if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink. … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:14-21, NASB).

How are we doing with that?

In the midst of a tumultuous, angry, fearful, anxious, suspicious, busy time, how are we doing with that? In a time when leaders stoke those fires while using God’s name, Christian labels and biblical language, how are we doing with allof that?

It’s interesting that every other instruction in that passage is declarative: bless, do not, never, feed, give. The only qualification to those last two—feed and give—is if the person is hungry or thirsty.

But peace: “If possible, so far as it depends on you.”

We live in these days as if to say, “Thank you, Paul, for that escape clause.” We live as though it isn’t possible for us, as though it doesn’t depend on us to be at peace with all people.

Or maybe it’s just me.

Defining peace

I want to revisit an August editorial, perhaps because I need the reminder.

In August, I explored the meaning of peacemaking by way of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus called peacemakers blessed. The context—the Beatitudes, the opening of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-12)—indicates Jesus expected his hearers, which now includes us, to be peacemakers.

But peacemaking in a conflicted world is a complicated business. And ours is a conflicted world.

In August, I wrote in response to a host of things happening at the time, here and around the world. That list hasn’t changed much over the last nine months. Except to add the horrors of the Israel-Hamas war, more natural disasters and additional political strife, here and around the world.

Part of what makes peace such a complicated business is we don’t agree on definitions. “What one person calls ‘peace’ another derisively calls ‘pacifism.’ What is peacemaking in one situation is placating or avoidance in another,” I wrote then. It’s no less true now. This is just scratching the surface of disagreement about peace.

There is disagreement about what it takes to have peace. Some believe we must legislate it to have it. Others believe peace is internal work, not imposed from outside. Still others believe peace is pure gift, spiritual, supernatural.

In reality, peace needs something of all three. God does give us peace—that surpasses all understanding. We do have internal work to do in our hearts, minds and souls. And we do need guardrails to govern behavior for the good of society, even if we differ mightily on what those guardrails should be. Indeed, peacemaking is a complicated business.

But it’s harder than that. “All people,” Paul wrote. “Be at peace with all people.”

‘Be at peace with all people’

Some translations read, “Live at peace with everyone.”

The context doesn’t limit the reach of “all” to some people. The context indicates “all people” isn’t just fellow Christians or, more specifically, those Christians who think like us, worship like us and vote like us.

Given the rest of Paul’s instructions in the passage from Romans quoted above, “all people” means … all people.

If we don’t think it’s possible to be at peace with all people, then we need to ask for God’s gift of peace, and we need to do the internal work of discipleship, allowing the Spirit of Christ to shape us into the kind of followers who look an awful lot like the Lord who “emptied himself by taking the form of a bond-servant” (Philippians 2:7) and told us the disciple is not above the teacher (Matthew 10:24).

This isn’t just complicated work; it’s bloomin’ hard work. It’s no wonder we’d rather fight. At least fighting seems just.

We don’t want to bless those who persecute us. We want to give as good as we get, tit for tat. We want to believe we are agents of God’s wrath. We want to justify withholding from our enemies, bending the definition of “enemy.”

We do consider ourselves wise, at least wiser than those who see things differently. And in our wisdom, we overcome what we consider evil with what we consider good. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. We’ve been redefining God’s instructions from the first bite.

We’ve been at odds ever since.

We must give up that path and follow the footsteps of Jesus into the complicated and necessary work of peacemaking.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

Reverend Bill Lawson, founder of Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in Houston, departed this earthly realm today, May 14, at age 95.

Although I never met him face-to-face, his impact on my life remains profound. Every Oct. 2, I pause to remember him, thank God and praise the Lord for his ministry.

I remember sending him a thank-you note on Oct. 2, 1996, to thank him personally for what he meant in my life. The date may not be significant to everyone, but I keep up with it every year.

Without Reverend Lawson, I may not have become a believer in Jesus Christ.

‘A speaker’

As a lone 16-year-old, non-Baptist student at Baylor University, I was drawn to a group meeting on the second floor of Baylor’s Student Union Building to listen to a band and “a speaker.” The speaker turned out to be a preacher.

I was at a crossroads. I remember standing in the middle of the literal road, with the Student Union Building on the left and a hippie-looking guy on the right enticing me to attend a “cool, fun and wild party.”

Fortunately, I turned to the left and entered the Student Union Building. I sat on the floor in the back of the room listening to the music and then this preacher. I don’t remember exactly what he said, but I can guess.

He most likely said: ‘You are a sinner, and you must place your faith in Jesus Christ, and Jesus will become your Lord and Savior.”

There was a “time of invitation,” which is when people walk forward to the front of the room to talk to a designated person about a decision or to pray. I never had heard that phrase before. So, I kept sitting on the floor in the back of the Student Union Building.

But sitting on the floor cross-legged, I made the most important decision of my entire life. I accepted Jesus Christ.

I can’t say I understood what I had done or what a profound moment had just occurred in my life, but I knew something had changed, and I liked the new me.

Lawson shaped not only my life, but also the lives of countless others. His “speech” at Baylor University on Oct. 2, 1971, was a turning point. Imagine if he hadn’t been invited. Countless students—like me—might have missed the opportunity to encounter Christ in that transformative moment.

A pastor

Had Lawson not taken his calling seriously, the ripple effect would have been immense. His powerful sermons and unwavering faith inspired hearts and transformed lives. Without his commitment, countless souls might have missed the opportunity to encounter Christ—including mine.

The decision to start Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church was pivotal. His first 13 members formed a community that grew, thrived and impacted generations. Without this church, countless spiritual journeys—like mine—might have taken different paths. This church now numbers 12,000 in membership.

Reverend Lawson collaborated with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which led to an invitation to join King’s efforts in Atlanta, Ga. Their joint efforts could have influenced civil rights, justice and equality beyond measure. But Lawson stayed committed to the 13 people at his church and decided to remain in Houston, where he first came as a 27-year-old man.

Reverend Lawson’s commitment to those 13 individuals mattered. Each soul he shepherded had a unique story. Without his dedication, those lives might have lacked spiritual guidance and community.

Houston owes much to Lawson. His presence shaped the city’s spiritual landscape. Without him, Houston might have missed a beacon of faith, compassion and justice.

The Lord can use each of us, whether in formal ministry or everyday interactions, to impact lives. If you haven’t yet explored the message of Jesus Christ, consider seeking answers and discovering the profound love that awaits you. It’s a journey you won’t regret. I haven’t.

My tribute to a man I loved, but never met

Though I never met Reverend Lawson face-to-face, I loved him for leading me to Jesus. I offer Paul’s words to the Christians in Thessalonica in tribute to Reverend Lawson:

“For you yourselves know, brethren, that our coming to you was not in vain, but after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition.

“For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts.

“For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness—nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority.

“But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us (1 Thessalonians 2:1-9, NASB).

Patti Greene is a graduate of Baylor University and Dallas Baptist University, a member of Second Baptist Church in Houston, and the author of seven books. She obtained some of the information for this opinion article from KTRK 13 in Houston and KPRC 2 in Houston. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

My sister’s first job was at Whataburger. Between the financial compensation, the comradery of fellow employees around her age and the benefit of free food, it was a dream job.

She worked that job excellently for a few years until her academic and athletic responsibilities created a scheduling conflict for her.

Fast forward 30 years, and my sister hates Whataburger. She hates the logo, the food, the smell and even the look on the inside of most of their restaurants.

This is by no means to disparage Whataburger and its management or business practices. However, my sister says she has seen too much, eaten too much of that food and smelled that smell too much to have anything to do with it again.

My sister and I are pastor’s kids. And while by the grace of God we both are heavily active in our faith and service in the local church, we know so many other pastors’ kids who hate church. They have seen too much, eaten too much of that food, smelled that smell so much they do not want ever to be involved with it again.

This poses a question: How do we care better for the pastor’s kids?

Expectations

There is an unfortunate stereotype around pastors’ kids. The research suggests “the dominant stereotype of the pastor’s kid is the prodigal—the wayward child, the rebel who has fallen away from the faith, the backslidden who’d rather strike out on their own than live in the shadow of the steeple.”

That same study states: “Overall, one–third of pastors (33 percent) say their child is no longer actively involved in church,” and “close to 45 percent of pastor’s kids wrestle with their faith through extreme difficulty.”

We see here two major issues for pastors’ kids. One is an issue of expectation. The level of scrutiny around a pastor and his family is unrealistically high. The expectation to be the model child academically, athletically and, most importantly, spiritually becomes undue and unjust pressure for most pastor’s kids.

Because of these expectations, the pastor’s kid is not able to be a kid. There is this perception that somehow, magically or by anointing, pastors’ kids will want to reject the party, the extracurricular activity, the social connection or even the extra sleep on a Sunday morning after a busy week. This expectation is funneled through channels in and outside the home.

The pastor feels the pressure of the congregation’s perception of his family, and the child feels the same pressure from that same group of people. The pressure from the parents and the parishioners is often unchecked.

Experiences

Experiences is the other issue. Pastors’ kids—or PKs, as we call ourselves—have seen too much. We have heard too much. We have experienced way too much.

“Too many children of pastors are casualties in the spiritual battle. After seeing the inner workings of the church, many do not want anything to do with the Lord or his people,” Chap Bettis, author of The Disciple-Making Parent, states.

It is hard to disconnect the God of the faith from the people of the faith. This is especially difficult when the leader of your faith constantly is persecuted by those people.

When you have watched your pastor, who is also your father or mother, disparaged, disappointed, demeaned and devastated, it is hard to come back from that. When you have seen the financial struggles and the myriad of pain points churches go through, it is easier to go the other way.

Caring for the kids

As a PK myself and now a pastor with children, I have heard 1 Timothy 3:5 quoted often: “For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church?”

Faithful pastors often wrestle with how to love God’s family and their own properly.

Care for pastors’ kids should be a priority in the benefits package churches provide their pastors. This care is not an entitlement, but is in recognition of a pastor’s unique position.

Organizations such as Care for Pastors have felt this call and offer resources and programming to minster to pastors.

Church is supposed to be a community of people who have surrendered their lives to Jesus. Acts 2 paints a picture of commonality and support for all. That must include the pastor’s kids.

Churches should ask themselves if the standard they are holding the pastor’s kids to is the same standard they have for their own kids. Creating safe spaces for pastors’ kids to develop and receive praise and prayer for their imperfections like others provides healthy care for pastors’ kids.

I include praise, because the watchful eye cannot be simply a monitoring system. It must also be one that applauds the heart and service of everyone in the congregation, including the pastor’s kid.

“Respect is especially important as the children grow older. … If others verbally express respect for the pastors, the children’s view of their parents will rise,” Bettis asserts.

Honor of both the parents and the children goes a long way.

Finally, we must be intentional about creating margin and space for pastors to be present and active at home with their families. Their first priority and ministry must be their family. Giving their family the leftovers of their energy, time and witness does the most harm to a pastor’s kid.

The hope and prayer of every congregation is for none of their children—especially the pastors’ kids—to have my sister’s Whataburger testimony.

Ralph S. Emerson is the senior pastor of Rising Star Baptist Church in Fort Worth. He is a Master of Divinity student at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

The 2024 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting will be political, meaning the meeting will focus on how the convention will be governed. There doesn’t seem any way around it.

As it stands, messengers to the upcoming SBC annual meeting will elect one of six candidates as president of the SBC. They also will conduct the second vote on the so-called Law Amendment.

In response to these governance matters, many churches have been and are asking: “Will we stay in the SBC, or will we go? Will we make that decision, or will it be made for us? And if we go, where?”

These are challenging questions for those still connected to the SBC, because they are about identity, community and history.

While the 2024 SBC annual meeting will help some decide whether to stay or go, the more important concern—in fact, the most important concern—is that each church remain in Christ.

Which leader and which collection of churches enables you and your church to remain in Christ? That’s the most important question to answer. That’s the connection that matters most.

Those for whom the SBC is that place need to pay attention to the 2024 SBC annual meeting.

Six presidential candidates

The six candidates for SBC president are listed in order of nomination:

1. Clint Pressley, senior pastor of Hickory Grove Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C.
2. Mike Keahbone, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Lawton, Okla., and vice chair of the SBC’s Sexual Abuse Reform Implementation Task Force.
3. Jared Moore, senior pastor of Homesteads Baptist Church in Crossville, Tenn.
4. David Allen, former dean of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary School of Theology and current dean of the Adrian Rogers Center for Biblical Preaching at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary.
5. Bruce Frank, lead pastor of Biltmore Church in Arden, N.C.
6. Dan Spencer, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Sevierville, Tenn.

That six candidates have been put forward this year when two is typical reveals just how unsettled the SBC is. Despite the evident factions each represents, all the candidates agree with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

Until it was amended during the 2023 SBC annual meeting, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000’s “Article VI: The Church” stated: “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Messengers amended “pastor” to “pastor/elder/overseer” in 2023.

Many churches weighing their connection to the SBC are waiting to see what the convention does about women pastors.

All the candidates agree women may not be pastors. They may disagree on whether this is limited to the senior or lead pastor position in a church. They also may disagree on whether this needs to be codified in the SBC constitution—such as through the Law Amendment. But whoever of the six is elected will uphold Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

The person elected also may have to uphold an amended SBC constitution.

Being in ‘friendly cooperation’

Under “Article III. Composition” of the SBC constitution, the Law Amendment proposes a sixth criteria be added for a church to be in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC: “Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”

Proponents of the amendment believe it draws “a clear and bright line of Cooperation for [SBC] churches.”

Submitted by Mike Law, senior pastor of Arlington Baptist Church in Arlington, Va., and amended during the 2023 SBC annual meeting, the proposed amendment passed overwhelmingly on first vote. The required second vote will take place at the 2024 SBC annual meeting.

It seems likely messengers will give final approval to the Law Amendment in 2024, setting “a clear and bright line” for what churches are in or out of “friendly cooperation.”

Also during the 2023 annual meeting, messengers approved the formation of a group to study how to determine if a church is in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC. The Cooperation Group released their four recommendations May 1.

With respect to seating a church’s messengers—a formal recognition of which churches are in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC—messengers have “sole authority,” Jared Wellman, the group’s chair, explained.

Is it necessary?

Randy Davis, president and executive director of the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board, agrees with the Cooperation Group’s assessment of SBC messengers.

As he pointed out in a recent op-ed, messengers in 2023 demonstrated their capability to determine what churches are and are not in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC when they “overwhelmingly voted not to seat messengers from churches that had either a lead pastor or a campus pastor who is a woman.”

In light of that existing mechanism, the Law Amendment is unnecessary, Davis contends.

Davis further argues the amendment would make the SBC creedal and “a legalistically narrow road.” Many would respond that ship sailed decades ago. He also worries there may be no end to the narrowing. Again, a concern raised decades ago when the SBC was less particular.

What is necessary, Davis argues, is to “lay hold of God’s Great Commission vision that unites us and drives us into a spiritually lost world.” If you’ve read this far, I bet you agree with Davis on that point.

And that point matters more than who is elected president of the SBC and whether the Law Amendment passes.

Whether you or your church remain in the SBC is an important decision, but the connection that matters most is remaining in Christ, in whom is our true unity and purpose. No vote changes that.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

Chad Selph passed away Dec. 16, 2023, after a three-year battle with cancer. He was our pastor and friend. For me, Lezah, he was my boss.

I, Joel, realize the loss of a pastor is much more challenging for staff than any other loss. Lezah and I had the following conversation and share this with those who may find themselves also grieving the loss of a pastor.

How did losing Chad affect you?

Pastor Chad was my pastor for 26 years, but he also was my boss for around 15 years. His passing has been a big loss.

There are times I still think, “Oh, I wish I could share this with Pastor Chad.”

Chad always was hope-filled, no matter what, because he knew where his eternity would be. I miss him, but I have hope. Hope for First Baptist Church in Allen in the future. Hope in knowing I will see him again in heaven one day. Grateful he is healed. Grateful for the time I had with him.

What did or are you doing to take care of yourself?

I am going to counseling one to two times a month. I also am doing the GriefShare program, which has been wonderful. Also, I took a bereavement day recently and wrote Pastor Chad a letter.

I journal a lot and make time for rest on the weekends. Reading my Bible and praying always has been vital but especially in this season of grief.

As a staff, we are reading the devotional Streams in the Desert together. I write down a blessing of the day every day. Even on hard days, I always can find God’s blessings.

Another thing that has helped is just having conversations with people. Our church members need to talk, and so do our staff members. It’s really rewarding to hear other peoples’ experiences with the same person.

How can a staff better accept such a loss?

I think the best thing a staff can do when losing a pastor is to lean deeply into the Lord, lean into family and friends, and lean on each other. Be supportive of one another.

Allow for everyone to grieve how they need to. Encourage one another. Listen a lot more. Give lots of grace.

Limit scheduling a lot of things. Allow for the church and staff to share stories.

Pastor Chad left plans for the staff and had set a lot of things in place before he passed. This allowed our staff to continue moving forward. Preparing for the loss before it happens is hard but helpful. That is something all believers need to do.

We know our eternal home is in heaven, but it’s a gift when we have plans in place for when we do leave this Earth.

Pastor Chad wrote a letter to our senior staff. We got it after he passed. Reading it, you could picture Chad telling us these things. It was very uplifting, and I really appreciated hearing from him one more time.

How would you compare the loss of Chad to any other loss in your life?

Pastor Chad’s passing is a loss unlike any other I have had. Like most losses, there always is regret. I wish I would have said this. I wish I could have done this. Like most losses, there always is sadness.

Like most losses when a believer dies, you have the joy of seeing them again one day. His loss was one that really tested my trust in God’s timing. I had not lost anyone yet that I had spent so much time with. I found myself getting stuck in a cycle of scenarios, worrying about the future.

The Lord has shown me over and over again the ground isn’t shaky with him, his timing and plans are perfect, and we aren’t always going to understand it, but we can trust him.

Did you journal or talk to anyone before Chad passed? Did you start grieving before he passed?

I did. I talked to my counselor a lot before he passed. I also talked to trusted friends and family.

Since we knew about his cancer diagnosis for several years and saw him day to day, our grieving process was throughout his journey. We wrestled with it with him, and we prayed with him.

I know everyone grieves differently. I think God allowed us to grieve together with him so we could be strong and prepared for our church’s grief.

Why do you think your professional relationship with Chad was so deep?

I think it was deeper because our staff did life together.

Something Pastor Chad started when he came to First Baptist Allen was our senior staff would go out to lunch together every Monday. It was a way for our staff to get to know one another better. We talk about church things and everyday-life things. You could ask former and current staff members, and they all would say it’s one of our favorite traditions.

Our staff knew about each other’s families. We shared our prayer requests, our hurts and our hopes.

Chad was our pastor and also our friend. I know Pastor Chad prayed for me and our staff often. Most of his emails to our staff started with the greeting, “Friends.”

What else would you want people to know?

Don’t leave things unsettled. Try not to have regrets. Our days are not promised. Make peace with your loved ones a priority. Love well. Plan for the future. Be like Chad in sharing your faith even on the worst days. Keep looking up.

Lezah Maitland is children’s minister at First Baptist Church in Allen. Joel Blaylock is a member of First Baptist Allen and a friend of Chad Selph. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the authors.