The Law Amendment

On April 24th, I posted about Southern Baptists and The Law Amendment. In a vote taken at the SBC meeting Wednesday June 12, 2024, the Law Amendment failed. A majority of the messengers of the Convention voted for it – 61.45% to 38.38% – but it failed to reach the required 2/3 majority.

This represents a major division in sentiment of the churches (at least the messengers) of the Southern Baptist Convention. Over 60% of the assembled messengers believe that only churches that affirm, appoint, or employ only men as any kind of pastor or elder should be members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Yet not quite enough to enshrine it in the governing documents. This may not bode well for the future harmony of the body.

Southern Baptists and The Law Amendment

In a post on March 1, I mentioned that though I am not Southern Baptist, I recognize and understand that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest and most influential body of Baptists in the United States. This Convention is more often in the news than any other body of Baptists. In the minds of many Americans, what Southern Baptists believe and practice is what Baptists believe and practice. For that reason, as an outsider I sometimes address issues specific to the SBC. An SBC issue in the news, as well as lighting up YouTube, blogs and X posts, is what is called the “Law Amendment.”[i]

This is a proposed amendment to the SBC Constitution, Article 3, Paragraph 1, which defines the makeup or composition of the Convention, including what kind of churches can be deemed in “friendly cooperation” with the Convention. The amendment proposes a sixth affirmation clarifying such cooperating churches.

The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work (i.e., a “cooperating” church as that term is used in the Convention’s governing documents) which…6. Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture. [bolded portion is the proposed amendment]

The intent of the amendment is to exclude from the SBC churches that have female pastors.[ii] The use of the word “pastor” by churches in the SBC may range from the main preaching pastor to a woman who is the “pastor” overseeing the nursery program. For many it becomes an opportune word rather than a biblical word.

In February of 2023, the SBC Executive Committee voted to remove from its ranks the prominent Saddleback Church founded by progressive Rick Warren for having a female teaching pastor functioning in the office of pastor. In June the messengers of the Convention rejected Warren’s appeal and sustained the vote of the Executive Committee. At this time they also passed the first approval of the “Law Amendment.” It seems that the amendment intends totake the decision to oust a church out of being a subjective case-by-case decision made by the Executive Committee to being one firmly founded in the Constitution itself.

Proponents of the amendment argue that it will stabilize the convention “and guard us from the drift toward liberalism.” Opponents offer all sorts of arguments, from parliamentary matters to at least a light defense of women in pastoral roles as long as they are not “senior pastors.”[iii] They claim there is no “drift toward liberalism.” As an outsider looking in, it is my opinion that the “Conservative Resurgence” was not as much Conservative or Resurgence as either defenders or detractors of it like to think.[iv] Regardless, conservatism must be continually reasserted and reapplied. Often liberals simply duck down in their holes until the time seems right to pop their heads back up.

Some links with information about the controversy (pro & con):

• Can Anything Clear Come Out of Confusion? The Self-Contradiction, Omission, and Myopia of the Law Amendment -- “For the Law Amendment to be taken seriously, all supposed improper uses of the title should be addressed.”
• Can’t we all just get along in the SBC? -- “The SBC has no official power over any congregation, for better or for worse. The SBC does, however, have power to determine its own composition.”
• How Many Female Pastors are in the SBC? -- “The information collected is all publicly available. We checked every church against official SBC listings.”
• Letter: A Call to Keep Our Unity -- “The signatories to this letter join me in urging you to recommend the above amendment at the 2023 annual meeting. This action will bring clarity to the current confusion in our Convention...”
• Open Letter to Baptist Women -- “Even today, men are taking actions against women who are ministering, leading, and pastoring to spread the love and grace of Jesus Christ. They are wrong.”
• Responding to Opposition to the Law Amendment -- “The amendment simply clarifies what our Constitution already provides—that Southern Baptists wish to cooperate with churches that call biblically qualified men as pastors.”
• The State of the SBC -- “The question is going forward, do we want to have to consider every one of these things on a case-by-case basis? Because, I think the answer to that has to be no.”

---

[i] So-called because it was proposed by Mike Law, pastor of Arlington Baptist Church, Arlington, Virginia. As of 31 January 2023, a letter from Law about the amendment had gained over 2000 supporting signatures from SBC pastors and professors. I do not know its current status, numerically.

[iii] It is my understanding that this amendment was passed by the SBC messengers in June 2023, and that the constitution requires a second vote – that is, an amendment must be approved by 23 of the messenger in two consecutive annual meetings of the Convention.

[iii] Whatever that is. It is nothing, biblically speaking.
[iv] And certainly not a “takeover,” as the opposition grumbles. In 1978, the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and other entities sponsored a forum called the Consultation on Women in Church-Related Vocations. Now in 2023-24, after some perhaps 40 years of so-called “takeover,” the SBC is dealing with the fallout of women in church-related vocations (particularly ordained ones).

A monstrous tragedy of major proportions

F. L. “Bubba” Copeland served as the mayor of Smiths Station, Alabama, and the pastor at First Baptist Church of Phenix City, Alabama (a church affiliated with both the Southern Baptist Convention and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). He was a 49-year-old married father of three. On November 1st, 1819 News published “The secret life of Smiths Station Mayor and Baptist pastor F. L. ‘Bubba’ Copeland as a ‘transgender curvy girl’,” reporting that Copeland had created an online presence as a transgender female. Initially denying this fact, he eventually admitted to the online presence and explained the “alter ego” as a hobby he had used since his youth to relieve anxiety and stress. Copeland killed himself Friday evening (November 3rd, 2023). This is a sad story on multiple levels. Here are some available resources. Be warned that the initial article includes disturbing facts and some graphic details.

You can follow the sequence of events in the following articles:

• The secret life of Smiths Station Mayor and Baptist pastor F. L. ‘Bubba’ Copeland as a ‘transgender curvy girl’: ‘It’s a hobby I do to relieve stress’
• FBC Phenix City pastor disputes 1819 News article’s allegations
• F. L. Copeland -- prepared statement to his church, Wednesday the 1st (Starts at about 12:30)
• Alabama Baptist state leadership responds to Phenix City pastor allegations
• FBC Phenix City pastor Copeland’s death being reported

A ridiculous and appalling article appeared on Yahoo News, written for The Advocate by Christopher Wiggins. Its design was to spark outrage, which shows up repeatedly in the comments. However, there is disingenuity and fraud present. For example, the author claims “The Advocate honors people’s chosen names and pronouns. Because Copeland did not publicly come out before their death, The Advocate is referring to them as the person they presented publicly.” In fact The Advocate is lying. F. L. Copeland never presented himself publicly as “they” and “them” (his own claim: “It’s private. I don’t do it in the public or anything like that ... It’s just a fictional character I made up to relieve stress.”). They are greasing their own wheels rather than honoring Copeland’s chosen pronouns, as the article fraudulently claims.

Much of the mainstream media has painted this as an ugly “outing” of mean-spirited conservative journalism which caused Copeland to take his own life. Little reflection on what part his own actions, online presence (which is not really private no matter how much one wants to imagine it is), and contradictory “second self” might have played.

What are your thoughts?

Credential Creep, Credentialism, and False Credentials

Top Southern Baptist Convention news this past week probably is the resignation of Willie McLaurin from interim president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee. I first read about it at Baptist News Global, a liberal news and opinion site that gleefully reports any foibles of the convention and skewers them for it.

McLaurin, interim president and considered most likely to be hired for the permanent post, resigned August 17th. He resigned because of the finding that he had falsified information on his resumé. His resumé included earned degrees from North Carolina Central University, Duke University Divinity School, and Hood Theological Seminary – all of which were false (as well as a claim of military service).

Previously, McLaurin had served 15 years on the staff of the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board, as well as a pastor at Greater Missionary Baptist Church in Clarksville, Tennessee, and pastor Greater Hope Baptist Church in Union City, Tennessee. He was elected to serve on the SBC Executive Committee staff in 2020. In 2022, after the departure of EC president Ronnie Floyd, he became the interim president of the Executive Committee.

All this lengthy introduction to make a few related points.

From what I have read about Willie McLaurin, he is a hard-working, personable man – a really nice guy that people like. Many Southern Baptists thought he was doing a great job as EC interim president, and were rooting for him to be elected to the permanent post. Nevertheless, he chose a false way to rise to the top. He lied. He falsified records. “Moreover, it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.”

I think we all can agree that falsifying a resumé is wrong. (Even most who have done so inherently know it is wrong.) Most folks want their resumés to look their best, but to create information out of thin air cannot be justified. I have not noticed anyone mention or report what credentials/education Willie McLaurin actually has. Regardless, he apparently believed his actual education would either disqualify him or not be good enough qualifications. So, he lied. This raises a question to me, “Why would pastors, preachers, and Christian workers falsify a resumé?” What pressure do they feel that makes it seem necessary or beneficial? 

I believe the answer is “Credentialism” – or as one respondent at SBC Voices called it, “credential creep.” That writer, Nathan Petty, pointed out how that historically Baptists had grown in the United States mostly without the benefit of seminary trained preachers. Then they progressed in formal education. As this progress moved forward in the 20th and 21st centuries, the amount of degrees offered and education expected grew exponentially. According to Petty, the counsel of many would be for a man to get seven years of formal education (DMin) in order to be “really” be qualified to serve a local SBC congregation.[i]

This is not only an SBC issue. Many Baptists feel this pressure for credentials – or perhaps simply lust for the glory of the title. Our Baptist congregation is not affiliated with the SBC, neither any organized association, convention, or fellowship. Because of that, apparently, we received a lot of unsolicited “independent fundamental” correspondence. I have noticed in these circles a tendency for every Tom, Dick, and Harry – no matter how ignorant or uneducated – to be “Dr. So and So.” Whether they have legitimate degrees or bought one from the pawn shop, they tout their status. Every speaker at a conference is a “Dr.” What’s the deal? No doubt some of it is base human pride. I believe the other factor is “Credentialism.” We have unfortunately created communities of Christians who cannot “search the Scriptures” whether things are so, but need to be told it is so by “Dr. So and So.” If Paul’s Apostleship was not good enough for the Bereans, your “Doctorate” is not good enough for me!!

When we turn to the Bible discussions of qualifications (1 Corinthians 4:2; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9), a clear case can be made for honesty and integrity. Level of formal education is nowhere to be found. Yes, apt to teach. No Doctor of Ministry. I have no fondness for ignorance. Nevertheless, the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. Throw away those practical qualifications your church or ministry has created. Go back to the Bible. The qualifications there are inspired by God.

My intent is not to beat up on Willie McLaurin. We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. However, may this incident be a teaching moment.

• Let us look to the Bible for the qualifying credentials of the ministry.
• Let us see the church founded by Jesus Christ is the primary biblical educational institution.
• Let us commit to telling the truth, regardless of the consequences.[iii] 

---

[i] For example, the Duke Divinity School Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.) program is normally completed in three years. They require a prior Master of Divinity (M.Div.) or comparable master’s degree before enrolling in the program. Therefore, in this case, the DMin takes about six or seven years. (Duke also requires at least five years in full-time ministry before entering the program.)
[ii] While working on this, at the top of the Word Doc I had something else on which I was working — the hymn/poem “The Church’s Desolation.” The second verse (and others) seemed to have some correlation. “Her pastors love to live at ease, They covet wealth and honor; And while they seek such things as these, They bring reproach upon her. Such worthless objects they pursue, Warmly and undiverted; The church they lead and ruin, too— Her glory is departed.”
[iii] Mark Terry writes, “If we cannot depend on pastors and church workers to tell the truth, then we’re in bad shape.”

Bigger problems than women pastors

The Saddleback Church (i.e. Saddleback Valley Community Church) in Southern California recently has been a news focus by being out of step with the Southern Baptist Convention on the subject of female pastors. In February2023, the SBC Executive Committee affirmed a recommendation from the Credentials Committee to consider the Saddleback Church “not in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention.” In Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the articles of faith of the SBC state that “the office of pastor /elder /overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” “Purpose Driven” founding pastor Rick Warren appealed the Executive Committee decision to the meeting of the Convention in June. He appeal failed in a big way – with about 88% of the messengers rejecting the appeal.

In “Turning worship into a clown show” on World News Group, Carl Trueman asserts that “Saddleback Church has even deeper problems than female pastors.”

“Leading worship while dressed as characters from the Toy Story franchise suggests theological problems that go way beyond debates about the nature of Paul’s teaching on eldership.”

“…the church is not called to mimic the world. Far from it. There is only one description in the New Testament of how an outsider should react when he blunders by accident into a church service. It is in 1 Corinthians 14:24–25. Paul tells us that such a person will be convicted and fall on his face, knowing that God is there. Presumably, this is because he finds himself in the presence of a holy God and is overwhelmed by his own sense of unworthiness. Turning worship into a comedy skit seems unlikely to produce the same result. In fact, far from being sensitive to the needs of any seeker, it sends a clear signal that the gospel is unworthy of attention by any serious-minded person, believer or unbeliever.”

“...trivialization of worship rests ultimately upon a trivialization of God Himself.”

“Women in ministry was the focal point of the SBC controversy this year, but this inane childishness parading as church seems to indicate that there are problems much deeper than that of who leads worship.”

Answering William’s Thirty Questions

Thirty questions on our ecclesiology, by William Thornton, posted on SBC Voices.

William is a retired SBC pastor who is quite amiable, with whom I have interacted in a couple of forums (Baptist Life & SBC Voices), and who I would describe as slightly to the right of moderate. On the Baptist Life forum, which tended very moderate to liberal, he stood out as conservative there.

The subject of women pastors is one of high alert in the SBC at the moment. Discussions abound. In their June 2023 Convention the delegates voted to uphold the decision of the Executive Committee, which sees churches with women pastors in violation of the Baptist Faith and Message (the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture) and not in friendly cooperation with the Convention. One was the high-profile Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, founded by Rick Warren. A lot of current SBC discussion is nuanced on positions that may not be pastoral but has pastor or minister in the job title, or positions that are pastoral, but do not have pastor or minister in the job title (e.g. director, instead).

I am not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Some of the questions are really outside my interest, since they are pretty specific to the SBC. On the other hand, I noticed few people at SBC Voices seemed willing to tackle them head on. Rather, they just post what they want to say, throwing something in the general vicinity of the questions. So I thought I would do so, primarily to exercise my slumping brain on the subject of Baptist ecclesiology (a very important subject).

The thirty questions and thirty answers:

1. If a church has multiple pastors, who is the pastor and how does the congregation express this?

If a church has a scriptural plurality of pastors (elders) then they would express it by calling them all pastors equally. The problem is that many churches that have multiple pastors usually have an hierarchy of employees called “pastors” while employing many of them in positions that have little resemblance to biblical pastoral ministry.

2. Is the fresh-faced nineteen-year-old summer student pastor the same as his ultimate supervisor?

I have no idea what a “summer student pastor” is, and less inclination to find out. It does not sound like a biblical pastoral position to me.

3. The SBC spent decades with a pastor/deacon model. Those decades were the greatest in our growth. Why is that model so easily discarded?

I am not SBC, so probably not highly qualified to answer this question. The one SBC church with which I am most familiar concerning their “pastor/deacon” model may have employed it successfully, but not scripturally, in my opinion. The business of the church was conducted in the private deacon’s meeting and then presented to the church for approval by “perfunctory” vote (see William’s question 24). I think that model should be discarded.

4. How much of our ecclesiology can be traced to American affluence and liberty?

I believe that American affluence and political views on freedom, liberty, and democracy have influenced the ecclesiology in Baptist Churches in the U.S. I have no idea how much, but do believe it has had some negative effect – in the sense of looking to the “U.S.” as a model rather than the Bible.

5. If churches didn’t have buildings and budgets would church governance look different?

I expect so, at least somewhat. Nevertheless, our bigger problem is the more general lack of focus on biblical faith and practice.

6. Is it fair to say that Southern Baptists, once megachurches and their celebrity pastors moved to the multi-site model, changed their ecclesiology to accommodate that?

Yes, I think megachurches and celebrity pastors have negatively affected the ecclesiology of Southern Baptists, as well as other Baptists in the U.S. A church meeting in several locations does not meet the biblical definition of a congregation.

7. Concomitantly, why do we always avoid the title “bishop” when referring to the pastor who has charge of multiple churches?

I do not think this is new. It is my own experience in the churches with which I have been associated in my lifetime, that they have generally either avoided or neglected the use of the word “bishop” to refer to pastors. This was well before megachurches, multi-site churches, and (mostly) celebrity pastors. It is my opinion that this scriptural word was avoided mainly because of its misuse by other denominations and in a desire to steer clear of misunderstanding – that “elder” and “pastor” would carry less baggage than bishop in most cases.

8. If any kind of woman pastor is constitutionally prohibited, don’t we have to get into the business of functional job duties?

No, just do not have women in pastoral job duties. However, it is problematic that some churches give women the same functional job duties they would consider pastoral, but skirt the issue by calling them by some “title” other than pastor.

9. If we delve into job duties are we not then forced to decide on the age of males at which females are prohibited from teaching, supervising, and directing?

Yes, I would say that some churches give women authority over males at certain ages, which, if they were called pastors, to which they would object.

10. Is there any ecclesiastical component other than women as pastors that would receive the level of scrutiny that we are now giving to churches?

Is there? I don’t know. Should there be? Yes – divorce and remarriage in the ministry being one of them. And all the other qualifications should be resurrected with proper emphasis. It is a fact that many churches have punted the biblical qualifications in favor of instead judging one’s experience, educational, and executive qualifications, and such like.

11. Is the focus on women motivated in large part by the ease at which men can distinguish between a woman and a man?

Probably not. Hopefully Southern Baptists still can distinguish, but many in our society cannot profess to tell the difference between a woman and a man.

12. Is there any other qualification of pastor that is likely to receive such scrutiny? Why not?

Traditionally, “husband of one wife” has received a lot of scrutiny, but that bird seems to have flown the coop. See also question 10.

13. If a church has an executive pastor, why can that position not be filled by a woman?

What is an executive pastor, biblically? If it is a biblical position to be filled according to the qualifications of I Timothy and Titus, how can it be filled by a woman?

14. What does a worship pastor pastor?

What is a worship pastor, biblically? If it is a biblical position, wouldn’t all pastors be “worship pastors” whose qualifications are set forth in Timothy and Titus?

15. What other major statement of faith, creed, or confession utilizes forward slash phrases?

Huh? This was initially meaningless to me, until I found that William refers to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message using slashes in Article VI – “pastor/elder/overseer.” William always like to insert a little humor.

16. How much sense does it make to declare that your church can cooperate with other churches that have female directors or ministers but not cooperate with those who have female pastors?

A local church is autonomous, and so can cooperate with whomever she wishes. However, biblical cooperation is based on biblical principles. Are there any biblical principles for female directors, female ministers, or female pastors? What is the difference? I assume William is probably hinting at a hypocrisy hidden in there being no difference in function, only in name.

17. One of our few success stories of this century is the increasing proportion of African American and other ethnic churches who identify as SBC. Does it concern anyone that we may totally undermine these successes?

How is this being undermined? William does not say. We are not SBC, so this question is somewhat immaterial to us. Our church, as a local church, fellowships with “ethnic churches” based on shared biblical faith and practice rather than our supporting a common program.

18. If a mixed adult group has man/woman team teacher and the main teacher is the woman, is this a problem?

Yes, it sounds like a way of circumventing not having a woman teach adult men (i.e., by calling in a team).

19. How long has it been since your church prohibited women from speaking in a church conference?

We do not prohibit it, though they do not run the church business. We do not prohibit men who are not pastors from speaking in church conference either. Prohibiting women from speaking in conference is more an issue of one’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 than with the issue of women pastors. I know some churches that do prohibit this, based on that Scripture in 1 Corinthians. Is William trying to imply churches are inconsistent to refuse women pastors while allowing them to speak in church conference? We also allow women to sing and testify.

20. If our constitution says a woman may not be “any kind of pastor” is it acceptable to have other titles, e.g., minister, director, assistant?

This seems to be rooted in a progressivism that desires to create positions that the Bible does not create or recognize as Scriptural offices.

21. What is a co-pastor?

I suppose it is according to what the church that uses it means. Sometimes it has the sense “together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually” (suggesting equality); “sometimes it has the sense “auxiliary, subsidiary” (suggesting subordination). A group of equal plural elders would be “co-pastors” in a sense according to the first definition. A group of “under-pastors” serving under a the direction of a senior pastor would be “co-pastors” according to the second definition.

22. If a church has pastors, elders, and deacons should they be excluded?

What? Excluded from what? I do not understand this question.

23. If deacons have administrative authority, and in most SBC churches this is the case, how is this unbiblical?

Biblically, deacons are servants of the church. If the church assigns them administrative duties, then they could be biblically serving the church. If they have administrative authority over the church, it would be unbiblical.

24. Is a church legitimately congregational if only perfunctory votes are taken?

Perfunctory is likely a matter of perspective. Do you think some other church’s votes are perfunctory, and does that church see that operation as perfunctory? Perfunctory in this context likely means “performed merely as a routine duty.” The votes of the church I mentioned in question 3 seemed “perfunctory” to me. However, it is likely that their “routine” approval of the deacons’ motions and seconds could turn to something else if the deacons proposed something they did not like. So, though I did not like their system, and perhaps they were not congregational carefully enough, but in the end still exercised congregational oversight.

25. Should all women who have affixed to their church position the term “pastor” be considered carnal Christians, ipso facto disobedient, and out of fellowship with God?

They would be disobedient to the extent they disobeyed the biblical faith and practice. Same as a believer who refuses to be baptized, or one who deliberately chooses sprinkling over immersion, and so on.

26. How has our American system of itinerant ministry shaped our ecclesiology?

Here I am assuming William means the common practice of preachers moving from church to church (often upwardly), rather than ministering long-term in one church (especially the church in which they were raised and ordained). To me, a true itinerant minister is not a pastor. However, that has often be the effect in churches. A pastor is called, becomes acclimatized, and the church soon gives him to the boot. Or, a pastor is called, becomes acclimatized, but soon finds a much better offer which “calls” him away. I am not sure this has shaped our ecclesiology in terms of definitions (though perhaps so), but I do believe it has negatively shaped our ecclesiology in practice.

27. Is ordination a consideration in any discussion of women pastors or ministers?

Yes, it should be. If women should not be pastors (and they should not), then they also should not be ordained.

28. What determines whether or not speaking is preaching? Is it the furniture involved or the gender of the speaker?

Preaching is an act of public biblical proclamation and teaching. Furniture and gender do not determine it; the Bible is our rule of faith and practice.

29. How long before Lottie, Annie, and Bertha lose their high standing in today’s SBC?

I have no idea, but have always thought it a bit odd to have all the big offering pushes in the SBC named after women.

30. Do you think folks in the pews care about all this?

Yes, in our pews in our church they do care.

Bishops, Elders, and Pastors

Colin Smothers created a Venn diagram to illustrate the overlapping usage of the words bishop, elder, and pastor in the New Testament. He writes about it in Pastor, Elder, and Overseer: A Baptist View -- “Baptists have historically equated the terms ‘pastor,’ ‘elder,’ and ‘bishop’/‘overseer,’ thus understanding all three terms to speak of the same office.”

Select link to see full size diagram

The “Qualifications” of a Bishop

Having been reliably informed that the requirements for the office of bishop set forth in I Timothy 3 “are the requirements for a perfect preacher,” I embarked on an in-depth Bible study to find out to which qualifications the churches could refer for the less-than-perfect preachers who are currently available. I thought I might have found it in Titus 1, but then realized it sets forth the same requirements as I Timothy 3, obviously for the perfect preachers. So, I dug deeper. After a diligent search, I finally found the requirements in Judas’s seldom-read epistle to the Laodiceans. For your benefit, I share it here.

Laodiceans 3:1-8

1. Having failed in my efforts to collect the funds to come to you (the bag being empty): these things I write unto you, that you mayest know how you oughtest to behave yourselves in the church of Laodicea.

2. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a well-paying position with the bestowal of great honour.

3.  A bishop then must be shameless, the man of one wife, more than one, or none; possessing a good education and appropriate credentials; willing to move quickly when hostility rises; apt to leech;

4. Not given to dry and lengthy speech, but eloquent, concise, and funny; deserving of a valuable salary package; well-dressed, not threatened by deacons;

5. One that driveth a fine chariot, is schooled in kissing babies, and apt to fool old women;

6. Even so must their wives be mothers of several children, while looking as if they never had any; apt to flatter, play the piano, organize the women’s auxiliary; full of zeal and zest;

7. Moreover let the bishop be photogenic, having an impressive resume, not a novice (for there are small insignificant churches for others), recommended by seminary leaders. Moreover he must have a good report of wealthy businessmen; all these qualifications, lest he be an embarrassment to the rich and prospering church in the thriving metropolis of Laodicea.

8. Finally, my brethern and sistern, though I write in the tongue of men and angels who use gendered pronouns, let nothing be construed as meaning any persons cannot serve in the office of bishop in the church. Progress be with you. Fare ye well.

No more shall there be a problem finding someone to meet the necessary requirements. We need not look for Paul’s perfect preacher. Judas’s recommendations will work just fine!

* Note: Count bard Ehrmandorf stumbled across the fragment containing the third chapter of the epistle to the Laodiceans, handwritten in Greek on a tanned skunk hide, while browsing a garage sale at the St. Baden-Gooden monastery on Mount Tübingen.

The Husband of One Wife

“the husband of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6

I recently read an online essay about divorce, remarriage, and the qualifications for the ministry, focusing on the phrase “the husband of one wife.” I choose not to link to it, since the author displays a certain amount of hubris in his viewpoint that it unnecessary and off-putting. Nevertheless, this turns my thoughts to this post – not a lengthy tome, but something just to point out another option seldom discussed.

This writer and numerous others would point out three main ways to view the phrase “husband of one wife.”[i]

1. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of polygamy
2. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of divorce and remarriage[ii]
3. “The husband of one wife” means the kind of husband a man is to his wife

The first two are clear enough. I think there is little or no misunderstanding of them. The third is a newer model and may require some explanation. This third view says that phrase (μιας γυναικος ανδρα/ανηρ) literally means “one woman man” or “one wife husband.”[iii] This is usually explained as referring to the kind of husband a man is to his wife – one devoted to his wife.[iv]

As normally presented, most of the writers indicate the three ways are mutually exclusive – either not a polygamist, or not divorced & remarried, or not undevoted to his wife. It seems few consider that Paul struck on a phrase (under inspiration, of course) that can encompass all the positives and exclude all the negatives.

The historical research I have done indicates there was very little polygamy and much divorce practiced in the Roman Empire.[v] However, if a case of polygamy came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When the rampant divorce problem came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When a situation of a bad (undevoted) husband who has managed to avoid divorce came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop.

Therefore, this brief contribution is to assert that Paul uses the phrase “the husband of one wife” to umbrella several issues, rather than present an either/or distinction that must be chosen to the exclusion of the others.

---

[i] A fourth way “the husband of one wife” is viewed, is that it is a requirement that a bishop/elder/minister must be married.
[ii] This might be divided into three camps: The husband of one wife is a man (1) only who has never been divorced and remarried; (2) only who has not been divorced and remarried since salvation; (3) only who, if he is divorced and remarried, is covered under “the exception clause” of Matthew 5:32 & 19:9.
[iii] A helpful comparison, often missed, is 1 Timothy 5:9, where the similar phrase is used of the widow (but with, obviously, the gender roles reversed: ενος ανδρος γυνη “one man woman” or “one husband wife”).
[iv] This view (usually) allows for divorce and remarriage in the ministry, though I am at somewhat of a loss to understand how one who divorces his wife to marry another is a “one-woman man.”
[v] For example, see The Environment of Early Christianity, by Samuel Angus (New York, NY: Scribner & Sons, 1915): “Divorce was frightfully common…Men could put away their wives for the slightest cause, and women could as easily divorce their husbands…Marriage lost its sanctity: it was lightly entered upon because easily annulled.” (pp. 15, 46)

How Old Must a Pastor or Deacon Be?

Q. At what age may a person become a pastor or deacon?

A. The Bible mentions qualifications for the office of bishop/elder (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13; cf. Acts 6:1-7). There is no age-specific qualification – that is, no age (in terms of years) is given to which a person must obtain to be qualified. Some of the qualifications, however, indicate a man who has been around long enough to have some life experience. In general, the candidate for office has been around long enough that the qualities could be seen and judged. Paul mentions both wife & children. While that may not mean that every pastor and deacon explicitly must be married with children, surely Paul expected that would be the norm.

Paul told Timothy “Let no man despise thy youth” (1 Timothy 4:12). According to 1 Timothy 3:6 the bishop (pastor, elder) is to be “not a novice,” which likely refers to either lack of experience, or being a recent convert – as opposed to referring to a person’s age. Paul also advises in 1 Timothy 5:22, “Lay hands suddenly on no man…” The person appointed to office should be qualified to hold the office. The person should be known by the church to be qualified to hold the office.

The biblical qualifications for the offices of pastors and deacons should be taken seriously. Often they are not taken seriously, and even different qualifications required in their place. The other extreme should be avoided as well. This other extreme is a mentality of “don’t go in the water until you learn how to swim.” Fact is, pastoring and deaconing is a learning experience. No one will know what he needs to know when he begins. There is a certain amount of “on the job training.” Much of this could be alleviated, though, if we followed the biblical example of plurality of elders and deacons.

The Shepherd and the C.E.O.

On the SBC Voices blog, Clayton Pruett, an SBC pastor in Illinois, wrote about The Shepherd and the C.E.O. Though I don’t agree with all points as he expressed them, I think the following excerpt below comparing the Shepherd and C.E.O highlights some problems with the “C.E.O mentality” that permeates American churches. It is good that someone in the SBC speaks against it.

·         C.E.O. Leaders use people for progress

o   Shepherd Leaders love and invest into people

·         C.E.O. Leaders see friendship and pastoral work as an obstacle to success.

o   Shepherd leaders see friendship and pastoral work as success.

·         C.E.O. leaders see accountability as a challenge to their authority.

o   Shepherd leaders see accountability as caring for their heart.

·         C.E.O. leaders know how to work the system and manipulate to get their way.

o   Shepherd leaders know how to work through things with others to get God’s way.

·         C.E.O. leaders build a talented team to carry out their vision.

o   Shepherd leaders build a talented team to cultivate the church and each other.

·         C.E.O. leaders see other churches as competition.

o   Shepherd leaders see other churches as family.

·         C.E.O. Leaders use the Bible to reveal their vision

o   Shepherd leaders use the Bible to reveal Jesus

You may read the entire article at the link above.

Transitioning from One Leader to the Next

In How to Transition God’s People from One Leader to the Next: Lessons from David and Solomon, David Huffstutler (a pastor at First Baptist, Rockford, Illinois, who blogs Religious Affections) writes, “Any church or Christian organization can feel somewhat lost when a pastor or leader steps down...we have an interesting example for transitioning leadership in the lives of David and Solomon.”

Based this example of David transferring the kingdom to Solomon, Huffstutler offers five suggestions he believes will help in transitioning from one leader to the next.

• Put your house in order before you finish your ministry.
• Warn your successor of the “problem people” that he will inherit.
• Pass off projects well.
• Don’t wait too long to pass the baton.
• Give people a proper transition from one leader to the next.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Pastor searching; how?

Over at the SBC Voices blog, Tony Jones wrote and posted We Can Do Something – Thoughts on Protecting our Churches from Sexual Predators. In his piece, Jones identifies “our #metoo problem” and suggests “some practical steps that churches can take.” Jones is writing primarily to Southern Baptist churches and the SBC – but sexual immortality, sexual assault, etc. is certainly not just their problem. I won’t criticize Jones’s advice too much, since it is directed at the way most Baptist churches find and call pastors – kind of dealing with things as they are rather than how they ought to be. Nevertheless, shouldn’t we ask whether the majority practice meets scriptural ideals? Is it is the right way or the best way to find and call a pastor? Is this the scriptural way, or look we for another?

First, some excerpts of Jones’s advice to individual churches:

• More training—Pastor search committees should undergo a period of training before they commence their search. Most search committees are not trained in what to look for, how to go about a thorough background check, or how to ask the tough questions that ought to be asked. I can see a day coming when church insurance companies will require search committees to be trained or they will not cover any litigation that is brought against the church for the actions of a pastor or staff member who was hired but not properly vetted.
• Deeper, deeper, deeper background checks—While most search committees obtain criminal background checks, most stop the deep dive at that point. The criminal background check should be the beginning of the deep dive, not the end. Search committees should ask the candidate if he would submit to an audit of his finances; bank statements, credit card statements, and the like. This should be done by an independent third party, and the search committee members should only be given the results if there something malicious or disqualifying.
• Spies—My home church, to my knowledge, sent people to the towns of their candidates to ask around about them. This didn’t prevent what happened, but I think if more churches would take the time to do this, there would be some grief saved.

In the comment section, David Rogers stated, “Ideally, churches should look for home-grown pastoral leadership from within their own congregation.” He did not disagree with thorough investigation if the church looks “outside,” but pointed out a difference between what he sees as the norm and the ideal. Over the years I have come to much the same conclusion – that we should pray for God to raise up men among us, and generally call those we know rather than churches looking hither, thither, and yon for pastors. There is no perfect solution in an imperfect world, but I believe this is an improvement, a move in the right direction.

My main interest is not discussing #metoo per se, but it is interesting how this kind of thing is affecting the way search committees research their potential pastoral candidates. For example, when I saw the word “spies” in Jones’s piece, I thought to myself “That sounds weird.” Is there a better way?

In the absence of polling date, based on experience I’d say the majority of Baptist churches set a pastor search committee in pursuit of the one best man for the job. Often this ideal man does not live in the vicinity and is personally unknown to the church. This explains the desire for background checks and spies! Much of drive to find a replacement pastor from “off summers”[i] is related to pride, performance, and popularity. The church must have a man who speaks well in the pulpit (performance), one that makes them look good to the community (pride), and one who has a reputation “among the brethren” (popularity). Not only that, churches often have very unrealistic expectations – expectations that exacerbated by the single pastor model so popular in contemporary times.

It is obvious that there were itinerant preachers in New Testament times.[ii] They “went every where preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). However, when churches were established and settled (though there were apostles and preachers who traveled, preached and visited) there was also established and settled ministry in those churches. The settled ministry usually consisted of several preachers and teachers. See Acts 13:1, for example. When Paul and Barnabas traveled back through Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, the ordained elders in the churches in those places, Acts 14:23 – “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” Paul instructed to Titus ordain elders in the churches in the cities of Crete (Titus 1:5). James’s exhortation to the sick to call the elders of the church (James 5:14) implies a settled ministry in the churches.

The point is not to suggest there can or will be no geographical movement among the ministry, but to simply suggest that the current scheme employed by many churches overlooks a biblical pattern that well supplies the churches if followed.[iii] Pray the Lord send forth labourers into his harvest (Luke 10:2) and send them from right among us.[iv] We should know them that labour among us – and what better way than when God raises them up from those we already know? (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:12.)

---

[i] “Off summers” – something of an in-house joke, “off summers” means coming from somewhere else, not nearby.

[ii] Itinerant (adj.) means “traveling from place to place,” or “characterized by traveling from place to place.”

[iii] Often this “current scheme” is fixated on credentials, engulfed in a “Messiah Syndrome” (i.e. looking for a savior rather than a pastor), deluded with grandeur, and operates with a “beauty pageant” mentality. Search committees tend heavily toward credentials. They usually do not know the candidate. They “validate” the candidate’s abilities by looking at his degree. This is a commonly accepted method of assessing a pastor’s ability.

[iv] We should commit the word of truth to the faithful among us. 2 Timothy 2:2 “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”

History of the plurality of pastors, finishing the testimony

For enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers

After I started a “refresher course” studying the plurality of pastors, I remembered several years ago I had purchased and read Who Runs the Church: 4 Views on Church Government.[i] I pulled this book off the shelf to review Sam Waldron’s chapter on “Plural-Elder Congregationalism.” In this chapter, he references the relationship of his view of church government to the writings of the “Apostolic Fathers.”[ii] In his footnotes, Waldron listed considering nine divisions of these writings.[iii] In a response to Waldron, L. Roy Taylor seems to understand that “Waldron gives ample evidence to establish the plurality of elders in a local congregation not only the New Testament but, with the exception of Ignatius, in eight of the nine major sources of the Apostolic Fathers” (p. 233). I agree that Waldron supplied “ample evidence” but could not find that he ever asserted giving evidence from all nine sources. He specifically cites, I believe, I Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, and Didache. Because of this I decided to make a quick run-through check of the sources. In addition to the nine sources of Waldron (see endnote below), I have added two more – Fragments of Quadratus of Athens and The Martyrdom of Polycarp, which are sometimes included among the “Apostolic Fathers.”

Below (near the end) is a chart of my interpretation of the “Apostolic Fathers” on the practice of plurality of elders. Ignatius is the sole possible supporter of any kind of “episcopacy,” speaking of three offices with the bishop in the singular.[iv] His references are strong but contrary to the weight of the evidence. Three of the writings (Barnabas, Quadratus, Diognetus) do not mention anything of relevance to the subject. It is my opinion that seven of the writings favor and point the early historical record toward plurality of elders in a single church. Some are quite straightforward, enough so that I consider them “conclusive” evidence in favor of plurality (Didache, First Clement, Hermas, Polycarp, Second Clement). Two I consider (and list as) “inconclusive.” The brief Fragments of Papias speak of elders in the plural, but generically in a way that does not directly identify the relationship of elders to congregations. The Martyrdom of Polycarp speaks of Polycarp as a bishop singular at Smyrna, but notably only calls him “a bishop” and not “the bishop.” This itself is inconclusive, nevertheless supports the conclusion from Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians.

Next, I will include a few excerpts from these writers that I have not given previously – including two from Ignatius which support a position other than the one I hold.

Ignatius to the Magnesians, 6:1 “Seeing then that in the aforementioned persons I beheld your whole people in faith and embraced them, I advise you, be ye zealous to do all things in godly concord, the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time.”

Ignatius to the Trallians, 3:1 “In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a church.”

Clement of Rome’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Clement 47:6 “It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters.”

Polycarp to the Philippians, 6:1 “And let the presbyters also be compassionate, merciful to all, bringing back those that have wandered, caring for all the weak, neglecting neither widow nor orphan nor poor, but ‘ever providing for that which is good before God and man,’ refraining from all wrath, respect of persons, unjust judgment, being far from all love of money, not quickly believing evil of any, not hasty in judgment, knowing that ‘we all owe the debt of sin.’”

Second Epistle to the Corinthians (aka Pseudo-Clement), 2 Clement 17:35 “And let us not seem to attend and believe now only, while we are being admonished by the presbyters, but also when we have departed to our homes, let us remember the commandments of the Lord; and let us not, on the other hand, be drawn aside by the lusts of the world, but let us endeavour, by coming more frequently, to make progress in the commandments of the Lord, to the end that we all being of one mind may be gathered together unto life.”

		Favors
Early Church Writing	Est. Date AD	Single Bishop	Plural Elders	Inconclusive
The Didache	50-120	No	Yes	Conclusive
The Epistle of Barnabas	80-120	X	X	No mention
Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians	80-140	No	Yes	Conclusive
Hermas - The Shepherd	100-160	No	Yes	Conclusive
Ignatius, Seven letters	105-115	Yes	No	Conclusive
Polycarp to the Philippians	110-140	No	Yes	Conclusive
Fragments of Papias	110-140	No	Yes	Inconclusive
Fragments of Quadratus of Athens	120-130	X	X	No mention
Pseudo-Second Clement	130-160	No	Yes	Conclusive
Anonymous, To Diognetus	130-200	X	X	No mention
The Martyrdom of Polycarp	150-160	No	Yes	Inconclusive

The previous posts:

• History of the plurality of pastors, a beginning
• History of the plurality of pastors, a second dose
• History of the plurality of pastors, this third time I am coming to you

Online sources re the “Apostolic Fathers”

• Apostolic Fathers by Kirsopp Lake, editor, 1913 (Greek, not English)
• The Apostolic Fathers, with an English Translation, Volume I by Kirsopp Lake (I Clement, II Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas)
• The Apostolic Fathers, with an English Translation, Volume II by Kirsopp Lake (The Shepherd of Hermas, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, The Epistle to Diognetus)

---

[i] This book is part of the Zondervan Counterpoints Series.

[ii] The “Apostolic Fathers” is a traditional name for early Christian writers (and their writings, 1st and 2nd centuries) who are believed to have had relationships with one or more of the apostles – or as Waldron puts it, “those writings supposed to have been written before AD 150 by the disciples of the apostles.” (p. 194)

[iii] Waldron’s list contained nine divisions of these writings: Clement of Rome’s First Epistle to the Corinthians; Ignatius’s Seven Epistles; Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians; The Didache; The Epistle to Diognetus; The Epistle of Barnabas; The Shepherd of Hermas; Pseudo-Second Clement; and Fragments of Papias. (pp. 243-244) His dates range from AD 97 to Ad 156.

[iv] Presbyters/elders and deacons being the other two.