Four Reasons I’m (Still) Voting Against the Law Amendment

Last year at the annual meeting in Indianapolis, I voted against the constitutional amendment proposed by Mike Law of Arlington Baptist Church in Virginia (the Law Amendment). Although I am a committed complementarian, I plan to vote against it again. Here are four reasons why.

One

The Law Amendment does not guarantee that only complementarian churches will remain in friendly cooperation with the SBC. In short, if Article III, Item 1.1 was not sufficient for the Credentials Committee to recommend removing NewSpring Church, the Law Amendment will not be enough. NewSpring was in gross and obvious misalignment with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Article III, Item 1.1 of the SBC Constitution reads that cooperating churches must have “a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith.” The Credentials Committee had everything they needed to recommend the removal of NewSpring. We don’t need to add a belief statement to our constitution. We need to know why the Credentials Committee did not act consistently with our current processes and give the messengers a path to correct their inaction.

Two

The Law Amendment moves one part of one sentence of one article of The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 into our Constitution. No one is proposing adding the authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of Christ, the virgin birth, or bodily resurrection to the Constitution.  Those doctrines are located where they belong—in our statement of faith. Why should we move one item from our statement of faith, as pressing as this item is, into our constitution? Why not keep it in our statement of faith and improve the processes by which the Credentials Committee operates? Or why not add a mechanism for messengers to go around the Credentials Committee if necessary?

Three

The Law Amendment could be applied more broadly than the messengers intend. While proponents of the Law Amendment have downplayed such concerns, it is not clear how broadly the amendment could be applied. The amendment states a church in friendly cooperation with the convention is one that “Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.” The broad language of “affirms, appoints, or employs” and “as any kind” has already resulted in endless conversations about function vs. office and women in shepherding roles over children and other women.

Four

The Law Amendment takes us one step closer to a denomination with a creed rather than a convention with a statement of beliefs. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is the statement of faith we have agreed to cooperate within. We do so in good faith that our family of churches subscribes to it, and we do so under constitutional agreement to maintain a faith and practice which closely identifies with it. Those who drift away from close identification should graciously remove themselves from the convention. Churches that do not remove themselves should be ruled not in friendly cooperation through a measured and deliberate process. We have that process. It is not perfect, but it has proven effective in almost every case. We should adjust the process and move ahead to advance the Great Commission with good faith and trust in our fellow Southern Baptists.

No matter what happens with the Law Amendment, I am optimistic about the future of our Southern Baptist family. We will continue to move forward and advance the Great Commission--from the neighborhoods to the nations. It is what we will do because it is who we are.