Thread by @sometimesalight

The irony of #SBC vote to uphold complementarian position of pastorate is not that it defines office as exclusive to men. It's that the pastoral office itself is not defined consistently across the convention.

The rhetorical result is that maleness becomes first qualification for pastorate in SBC. This creates vastly different ministry culture than might exist in a comp denom that has strict definition of pastoral office & process of ordination (of which one qualification is maleness).

B/c the ordination procedure is left to individual churches (as is to be expected in baptist polity!), the one binding thread is maleness. This reverses the order of identifying leaders, i.e all men are potential pastors until they are sorted out by lack of call or character.

Culturally this often results in neglect of developing both women & lay men. It doesn't have to, of course, but you have to be really intentional for it not to b/c the lack of definition around role of "pastorate" means a corresponding lack of definition around role of "laity."

Sit w/ this a moment: In SBC, there are no shared educational requirements for pastorate. No required internships or experience. No necessary pysch testing. No shared process. Nothing is agreed upon about the office except "male." (And finally, don't be a convicted sex offender.)

I understand that this may not be the intended effect of last week's vote. Many (most?) folks we're simply following conscience about biblical text. But holding to a doctrine isn't enough. It must be rightly & wisely applied.

That's why even conservative women are struggling w/ what happened last week. They know it means more than simply affirming complementarianism. They know the lack of shared definition & process around pastorate unintentionally elevated maleness w/in ministry culture

My appeal to folks who want to practice a holistic complementarianism is to recognize what actually happened--not what you thought or hoped was happening. This is a systems question. It wasn't simply about a text or particular stance.

I get it. I understand why folks don't want to get into the weeds on defining pastoral office or mandating a certain process. It's very anti-baptist. The SBC isn't a denomination after all.

And to that I simply say, "Indeed."

(Also, to be clear I'm talking about the Law amendment, not necessarily the vote around disfellowship. That's a slightly different conversation albeit connected.)