Is the “Truth and Unity Amendment” Misogynistic? (Part 2)

The Southern Baptist Convention recently approved a change in wording in the “Truth and Unity Amendment,” which would bar women from serving as pastors or preaching. It’s almost sure to pass when it comes up for a vote next year. Last week, we discussed the scriptural, theological, and practical reasons the SBC voted for the amendment and analyzed alternative interpretations. This week, we’ll look at some of the criticisms of the amendment.

Despite many people remaining opposed to the amendment, a fair reading of it demonstrates that the SBC approved it not because of being anti-woman but because of very specific readings of certain Bible passages within a complementarian theological framework. This is the belief that men and women fulfill different but equal roles. Most evangelicals accept this framework. Most also accept the plenary inspiration of the Bible, which is the belief that every verse was inspired and is God’s word. Once people get past a reflexive response to the issue, in fact they find they have more in common than not.

Nevertheless, aside from honest differences about how to read the supporting scriptures, both the SBC’s supporters and critics have legitimate complaints about the need, timing, wording, and potential secondary effects of the amendment. Even if the SBC were entirely correct in its interpretation, it doesn’t mean that the amendment is a good idea.

Is the Amendment Necessary or Helpful?

While some have argued that the amendment is necessary to close a loophole allowing women to preach, this very fact is troubling since it suggests that Christians are losing the cultural and theological war because of having to address the issue in writing. It would be better if churches simply followed the SBC’s interpretation without having to be told to do so. The fact that it has become necessary in the eyes of many Baptists to make a statement about the issue means their influence is not nearly as broad as they believe. Doctrinal statements are always the response to error and heresy. Otherwise, an amendment would not be needed.

Others argue that the issue is distracting. In the overall purpose of salvation and reaching a lost world, whether or not women preach seems a fairly minor issue to most. Of course, attendees of the SBC are the first to state that the business with the amendment took up a minimal amount of time, and most of their time was spent on the gospel. Some criticism was expected, especially from the culture. Nevertheless, in public perception this one issue drowns out all of the rest. Continually addressing women’s issues is derailing the ability of the SBC to promulgate the gospel.

It’s also creating division. Several churches have left the SBC or were forced out over the issue, including respected Christian author Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church. There’s always a balance between taking moral stands, which are going to divide people, and trying to reach more people, which requires bringing people together. The question is whether the amendment has been worth the trouble. The longer the issue drags out, the more damage it causes to the SBC’s reputation among the very people the SBC is trying to reach.

Is the Wording Sufficient?

Even if the amendment is necessary, many have criticized it for being vague in defining women’s roles. The amendment says only what women can’t do, not what they can, and critics have asked for clarification about women’s roles. For example, they might ask questions such as:

Can women be subordinate pastors? Many churches have hired women as assistant pastors, counseling pastors, youth pastors, music ministers, or educational ministers. As noted last week, some have argued that women can teach as long as they are “under obedience” (1 Cor. 14:34), whether to their husbands or to church authority. However, the Saddleback Church was originally dispelled from the SBC for having female assistant pastors, not lead pastors.

Can women serve in lay pastoral roles? Eph. 4:11 originally discussed pastors as a spiritual ministry gift, not as an office. Some argue that it’s possible for women to serve in a pastoral role without holding an office. That is, they care for people, make sure they get home, check on them during the week, etc. Sadly, many pastors would see this as usurping their own role, although doing so creates more labor for them that often leads to burnout.

Can women serve as deacons, apostles, missionaries, and evangelists? In addition to examples such as Mary Magdalene and Priscilla, many point to verses such as Rom. 16:1-7 or 1 Tim. 3:11 as proof that women served as deacons, apostles, missionaries, and evangelists in the New Testament. The problem is that in today’s SBC church, deacons often serve as elders, and pastors often serve as evangelists and apostles. Most missionaries are required to pastor new churches. All of these functions would be banned under the amendment.

Can women preach and teach to men in small groups, Sunday School, and Bible studies? While 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12 both appear to be discussing only teaching in a congregational setting, a more literal reading would ban women preaching in smaller groups, although clearly there are examples of this in scripture (e.g., Priscilla teaching Apollos). A strict reading would eventually lead to classes segregated by sex.

Can women assume other teaching roles? Few would oppose women teaching other women or teaching children (Tit. 2:3-5). However, at what age does women teaching young men become unacceptable? What happens when a man joins a mostly female teaching audience? Does the woman teacher become silent?

Can women address the congregation at all? There were women prophets in the New Testament, such as the daughters of Philip, and prophets typically brought brief words to the congregation. Today, we might call these exhortations, but this is typically a pastoral responsibility. Yet they might also be in the nature of testimonies, which is open to everyone. Would women be prevented from speaking at all? Or would such occasions only happen at the invitation of the pastor?

These issues will all require resolution at some point. The fact that the amendment doesn’t address them is therefore a weakness. It means the controversy will continue until all of these questions have been debated and resolved. In other words, the foolhardy belief among those who sponsored the amendment that it will settle the issue will most likely be proven wrong.

Of course, the authors of the amendment may argue that it’s better to allow congregations freedom to work out the details of how women can serve without defining it. Sometimes, less guidance is better. If so, why have an amendment at all? By nature, it is taking away the freedom of churches to decide or resolve issues based on their own needs and reading of scripture. In fact, this is one of the most unspoken criticisms of the amendment – it has undesired effects.

Will the Amendment Have Secondary Effects?

As with all legislation, the amendment will have secondary or tertiary effects that the authors have not considered. One such effect is the impact that the rule will have on churches trying to adjust to circumstances on the ground.

For example, suppose a small rural church only has fifty or sixty regular attendees, who are mostly farmers. There is only one part-time pastor on staff with volunteers to help with worship or youth. The only other person in the congregation with an advanced degree or any experience in public speaking is a woman who teaches history at the local community college. The pastor gets sick and needs someone to fill in. The woman is the only one in the congregation capable of doing the job, yet because of the amendment, the pastor would have to call around to find another preacher or would have to cancel services altogether.

Another example. Suppose a family moves to Eastern Europe to start a mission. The father pastors the new mission but dies after they’ve been there for less than a year. Rather than giving up and going home, the wife requests her home church in the states send a new pastor, but in the interim she takes over as pastor. Under the amendment, she would have to shut down the church or turn it over to whatever man is available, though he may have been a Christian only for a few months.

Both of these scenarios are not only possible but likely. Similar circumstances come up all of the time, and a strict reading of the amendment would cause additional work and in some cases would stop the sharing of the gospel. Ideally, the amendment should address such situations or else enforcement will have to take them into consideration.

Another possible secondary effect that some people have raised is the treatment of women. Some have argued that keeping women out of ministry leaves them at the mercy of abusive men, who will use the amendment to dominate or even take advantage of women. Let us be clear, however, that the two issues are unrelated. Pastors can fall or sin in any circumstance, whether or not the amendment passes. Nevertheless, some have proposed a compromise position in which adding greater penalties for abuse would make the amendment more palatable to concerned women and parents.

In conclusion, the Faith and Unity Amendment is not by intent misogynistic. The SBC desires only to follow their reading of scripture in light of complementarianism. Their purpose is to protect women and families, not to attack women. Most evangelicals agree with complementarianism and with the plenary inspiration of scripture, but there are honest disagreements about the verses and the roles that women can play in the church.

It’s another thing entirely whether the amendment is a good idea. It may be necessary and even theologically sound, but that doesn’t mean it’s wise. It’s creating distraction and division, the wording is unclear and leaves several issues unsettled, and it will cause secondary effects, such as taking away the flexibility of churches to adapt to issues in their own congregations. These are very real issues that the SBC will have to address at some point, and they are issues that all Christians need to consider.

If the amendment is adopted, a modicum of grace will be needed when it comes to enforcement, for “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Cor. 3:6). There are many issues that will need to be worked out, and many situations where exceptions will need to be considered. If we as Christians live by the letter of the law (or the letter of convention rules), we may find that we are preventing God from moving, for God works also through women. When we don’t allow God to move, faith eventually dies.