It is no surprise that JD Greear opposes the Mike Law Amendment to the Southern Baptist Convention constitution. The amendment would define churches with female pastors as not in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC giving automatic grounds for their disfellowshipping. He was one of the five former liberal presidents who was at the microphone when James Merritt made a motion for a task force to define friendly cooperation. The task force has since failed to meaningfully dissuade the amendment from passing and also to come up with recommendations to neuter it. Thus, JD Greear lays out his argument for female pastors to remain in the SBC.
In an article titled, “The Southern Baptist Convention’s Defining Moment: The Law Amendment and The Great Commission Resurgence“
But is that assumption justified? Didn’t we pull off (and successfully maintain) the Conservative Resurgence with these very instruments? And just a year ago, didn’t the messengers overwhelmingly vote to remove two churches—Saddleback (by 94 percent!) and Fern Creek—that were not closely identified with our faith and practice in this area?
Furthermore, egalitarianism is not seeping into our institutions. All of our agencies and state conventions embrace and practice complementarianism. And no significant contingent in the SBC has mounted a challenge to our clear and uncompromising affirmation of complementarianism in the BFM.
Greear contends that the push for female pastors is not an issue because Saddleback Chruch was kicked out over this issue. Only, what Saddleback did was hardly any different that what many Southern Baptist churches currently do concerning their female pastors.
Dr. Ramirez wants us to maintain the freedom to discern if Hispanic Baptist churches are calling ladies in leadership ‘pastora’ because they serve in the office of elder/overseer (and some may indeed fall into that category), or if they call her that (as in the case with his wife) through linguistic tradition. For the former, we may recommend an end to cooperation. For the latter, we likely will not. Enabling that discernment seems wise. This amendment’s phrasing takes it away from us. And those who say we won’t have to abide by the Constitution (i.e., the Credentials Committee can choose not to enforce it on churches they deem to be in process) are not considering how our Constitution works. Legally, we have bound ourselves to honor our governing documents. If a church violates the Constitution, legally all agencies and committees of the Convention have to honor it.
JD Greear pulls the race card, first with Blacks(again), then with Hispanics. Per Greear, we need to be sensitive because Hispanics call women pastors all the time, which is an indictment of their discipleship, not a cultural nuance Southern Baptists should acquiesce to.
Second, do we actually think that after putting this issue into the Constitution we’ll just move back to the Great Commission? Some of the most strident voices in this discussion weren’t talking about the Great Commission before this came up, and I am not convinced they will be talking about it afterward. A spirit that delights in majoring on these kinds of things is a spirit that knows no satisfaction until it has cloven us into 100 factions. If we pass this amendment, this issue will likely just be replaced by the next one. Who knows what that one will be? The multi-site model? Closed communion? Extroverted women teaching in a mixed Monday evening Bible study? Women who head the HR department on a church staff?…
My fear is that one day we’re going to wake up realizing we never talk about the Great Commission anymore.
JD Greear jukes to the Great Commission. The North American Mission Board has been sponsoring churches with female pastors including Echo Chruch, where Andy and Stacie Wood came from before replacing Rick Warren at Saddleback. NAMB has a history of funding churches that do not align with the BFM 2000, and JD Greear neglects the impact of not settling this issue. Churches with female pastors vote liberal in the SBC and thus impact the stewardship of resources for missions. So the Mike Law Amendment has a significant impact on the ability for Southern Baptists to execute the Great Commission cooperatively.
In short, I remain convictionally opposed to this amendment, not because of its content but because of its attempt to undermine our historic principles of cooperation. It overturns a system that works. I don’t oppose the Law Amendment because I’m a closet moderate or soft on theological issues. I am concerned that the missional, cooperative balance that has characterized our Convention since the Conservative Resurgence is about to be overturned. History matters. As G. K. Chesterton said, we should inherit the traditions of our past with reverence and respect, even as we continually re-examine them in light of our current situations.
I don’t think our system is broken. I don’t believe that our institutions are led by a bunch of closet spineless moderates. I want the SBC to get back to doing what we have always done at our best—reaching this nation and reaching the world.
JD Greear concludes by trying to convince the world that he’s not some sort of “closet moderate.” But he’s defending female pastors which makes him theologically liberal by default. JD Greear needs to go be Methodist somewhere else.
2 Responses
JD is a subversive figure. He claims Calvinism and being conservative but he acts similar to the PCUSA types.
Greear, like usual, is dead wrong.
The Methodists failed to act firmly against the in-roads being made by the alphabet-soup perverts when it really began to rear its ugly head in the 1990s. Look what resulted from falling for going with the crowd that counseled “tolerance” and “patience” and “not making an issue of it.” If the SBC doesn’t stop this now, then they should expect a similar result within a generation (if the Lord tarries).