SBC 2024: Comments on Two Misrepresented Issues

There are a host of hot takes coming out of the 2024 meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis on June 11th and 12th. Many of them are helpful and many of them are not. Many of the interpretations of the meeting are stilted and simply dishonest. Some of them may reflect a real, but in my view excessive, angst about the decisions the messengers made.

I will highlight two of the most discussed and misrepresented issues that came out of this year’s meeting. First, the failure of the amendment to the SBC constitution to empower the credentials committee to declare churches that have any woman with the title pastor, elder, or overseer on their staff to be “not in friendly cooperation.” Second, the resolution on In Vitro Fertilization.

Constitutional Ammendment AND FEMALE PASTORS

The proposed amendment to the SBC constitution was intended to empower the standing credentials committee to evaluate a reported church and recommend that the Executive Committee or the messengers declare that church “not in friendly cooperation” with the Southern Baptist Convention so that it would not be allowed to seat messengers (representatives with voting rights) at the SBC annual meeting on the grounds that the reported church has a woman with the title of pastor, elder, or overseer on their staff. For those not familiar with SBC politics, basically, it means that the church would not have a voice in the decisions of the convention.

The SBC currently has the means to declare churches “not in friendly cooperation” and unseat their messengers at the annual convention for not being faithful to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. This year, the messengers of the SBC voted to unseat the messengers of First Baptist Church Alexandria, Virginia based on their public profession that they do not limit the role of pastor/elder/overseer to qualified men. The vote was approved with over a 91% majority.

Frankly, I was surprised there were so many who voted against the motion to unseat the messengers, but the consensus was overwhelming. We do not know the reason why some of those who voted against the church’s removal did so. Motives were likely mixed. We should be charitable in our reading into the reason people vote in a particular way.

The next day, however, we took a vote on the proposed amendment to the constitution to simplify this process so we would not have to spend convention floor time every year on erring churches. The messengers at the 2023 SBC affirmed the constitutional amendment by a wide margin. It required a two-thirds majority a second year to make the change. That vote failed with only about 61% affirmative.

The failure of this vote has been interpreted by some media, bloggers, YouTubers, and by some vocal people within the SBC to mean that the SBC affirmed women in the pastorate. Any statement to that effect is false. In fact, the opposite is true based on the vote on FBC Alexandria.

I voted for the amendment. However, I know that many who voted against the amendment did so because they did not feel that the amendment’s processes are consistent with the traditional polity of the SBC. These people are, in fact, correct. However, tradition is not normative or we wouldn’t be able to change the process.

Those in favor of the amendment generally believe that expediting the process of identifying and declaring erring churches “not in friendly cooperation” is the best path forward given the pressures of the culture to compromise on Scripture in this area. Proponents of the amendment point to the fact that the SBC constitution already has language that allows the same process to be implemented for churches who affirm sexual revisionism, who are overtly racist, or who mishandle cases of sexual abuse. Be that as it may, there is room for people to vote “no” while still robustly affirming the current statement of faith in all its particulars.

There are also some messengers who likely voted against the amendment because they believe that the language of the BF&M 2000 (and the Bible) limiting the role of pastor to qualified men only applies to lead or senior pastors. They are in error. This position is not in accord with Scripture and is internally inconsistent. However, my general feel is that it is a much smaller proportion of the “no” votes. The SBC needs to do some work together to help these churches move toward a more faithful ecclesiology. This should be the function of local associations and state conventions primarily. There is hope that some congregations who currently hold this inconsistent position will reconsider when they invest time in studying what the Bible says on the issue.

The long and the short of it is that while I am somewhat disappointed that the amendment failed, I’m not alarmed. We have the process to do what needs to get done. We have time to help churches align better with the BF&M 2000 and Scripture on this issue. We just need to do it.

Resolution on In Vitro Fertilization

The second major issue that has drawn attention outside of the meeting was the passing of a resolution regarding In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) in humans. This is also a complex issue, which I will not outline in great length here. However, the resolution is being misrepresented as declaring that children who were conceived via IVF are unwanted or less valuable.

In fact, the resolution is careful to state the exact opposite. Phrases like “All children are a gift from the Lord regardless of the circumstances of their conception” are a dead giveaway on that front. Many of those who are currently commenting on the issue have not done the basic work to read the resolution.

The text of the resolution is available here.

The resolution stops short of calling IVF immoral in all circumstances. It does, however, raise concerns about freezing embryos, selective reduction (i.e., abortion) of unwanted embryos after implantation, and it calls couples to think carefully about the morality of their actions when using artificial reproductive technologies.

If we believe that life begins at conception, then there are millions of human children currently frozen due to common IVF practices. Given that reality and the risks associated with that process, Christians should have concerns about many of the standard practices within IVF—even if they do not reject the technology totally. In fact, the IVF resolution is remarkable for how little it says that is directive. Again, reading the resolution is helpful in understanding what it says.

In short, most of the discussion of this resolution does not reflect the content of the resolution. It is also an issue that draws heightened emotion because of the real pain of infertility. But reading the resolution shows that the text is careful to be compassionate toward those who are struggling with infertility or who have used IVF in the past.

The resolution doesn’t say everything that could be said, but it raises legitimate issues about a technology that is often applied with insufficient care for the life of the many children it creates, especially regarding the creation and freezing of “excess” embryos.