Thread by @profyancey

So the #SBC23 will occur this week. I have a unique insider/outsider perspective. I was disciplined by the Southern Baptists as a young Christian. I left them. Then recently joined a Sothern Baptist Church. Now that church has left the SBC

I have been to a couple of conventions. I was on the inside of the debate on CRT, and to a lesser degree on the debate on sexual abuse. But I do not have an insider position on the current debate about the role of women in ministry.

Finally, I am not going to take a personal position on the complementary/egalitarian debate. I have my own opinions, but I want to approach this as a social scientist than as a theologian. That is my area of expertise. Okay, here we go.

We cannot understand this debate without some appreciation of the Baptist resurgence occurring in the 1980s. The conservative wing took over the denomination. And one o the issues they fought over was the ordination of women.

That is a part of the history of the SBC. For many of us women pastors is an issue where we may agree or disagree but it is not foundational. But for some Southern Baptists, it is foundational to their social identity and perhaps even to their faith.

Thus the Southern Baptists set up their seminars to each complementarianism. Those seminaries still do. What the argument next week is about is what does the SBC do with congregations that to not sufficiently conform to complementarianism?

Once you understand that support of complementarianism is tied to defense of social identity, then the angry rhetoric makes more sense. I am not saying that there are no theological concerns in this debate But this is more about social identity than some are willing to admit.

For example, one scripture used is 1 Timothy 3:2 about the elder being the husband of one wife. But 1 Timothy 3:3 goes on to state qualifications of gentleness, not argumentative or greedy for money. Why focus on only the sex of the leader?

If this was only about scripture then there would be churches being disfellowshipped because they have greedy or argumentative or non-gentile leaders. Yet that does not happen. This is more about culture than complete fidelity to scripture.

It goes back to the protection of a social history and social identity about the taking back of the denomination from the “liberals.” The conservatives want to replay that which they saw as the saving of the denomination.

So will this save the SBC? As some have pointed out the SBC has seen a decline in membership. I will not go into all of the reasons for it but those pushing complementarianism would tell you that it is because of social compromise. I think they are wrong.

It is often pointed out that more progressive denominations are declining faster than conservative ones. That is true. Kelly documented this in his famous book – Why Conservative Churches are Growing.
amazon.com/WHY-CONSERVATI…

Kelly argues that conservative churches grow because they have a strictness that helps them to differentiate themselves from the rest of society. I agree with this argument. Thus, conservative theology has a vitality missing in mainline denominations.

But this is only part of the story. Christian Smith points out that strictness is not enough. He notes that while evangelical churches grow, fundamentalists do not. Why is that?
amazon.com/American-Evang…

Smith argues that while there is a need for distinction, one must also engage the culture. Fundamentalists tend to become so isolated that they can maintain their members but they cannot grow. There is a balancing act for maximum growth.

So does having women pastors create the unique distinctiveness necessary for growth. Well no because while the SBC has declined the Assembly of God has increased. You know what AOG has. Women pastors.

I am not saying that women pastors are why AOG is growing. But women pastors do not indicate the type of compilation that inhibits growth. Now the question is whether denying women pastors isolates a denomination so much that it cannot grow.

I do not know. But we may soon find out. I have noted that @RickWarren has been fighting the conservatives on behalf of his church. A curious decision since I do not think Saddleback needs to remain SBC to continue to succeed.

Does the SBC need Saddleback? Technically no. But if Saddleback is disfellowshipped this has meaning beyond that church. Not just churches that do not have women as head pastor but churches with women other leadership roles will not feel welcomed.

For a denomination with problems of membership decline removing Saddleback will not make that situation better. I do not know if the treatment of women leaders will make SBC more fundamentalistic than evangelical.

But if it makes it more fundamentalistic then it will impact the ability of SBC to grow. In other words, the status quo of complementarianism doctrine but not micromanaging churches will not harm growth. Changing that status quo might.

So those promoting a hyper version of complementarianism are gambling with the ability of the SBC to grow. More foundationally, because this fight has arisen it is possible that decline is now inevitable. No matter who wins we may see a denominational split.

If those defending Saddleback win the conservatives may leave especially after their losses fighting “CRT”. If the conservatives win we may see congregations fleeing their control. The conservatives may say that this will be the resurgence all over again.

I do not think so. It is not clear to me in a post-Christian society that the distinction of forbidding women pastors will bring vitality like it might have last century. IF we have a split the group that is able to balance distinctiveness with relevance will grow.

Well, those are my comments. I am obviously not attending this year (no gumbo for me) but will watch from afar. I wish the best for the SBC because even if I am not now part of them they are brothers and sisters in Christ. When one of us hurt we all do.