This could easily be the headline if the amendment on "pastors of any kind" is passed for a second time. I'm just going by the numbers provided by the zealots in charge of pushing this.
The SBC may decide on whatever basis and criteria they wish to use for membership. Autonomy at work. It just seems like severe overkill to target women sub-pastors in this fashion.The problem is that once the SBC makes this negative requirement official (the wording is "Does not affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind"), where could the EC go except to recommend en masse to the convention in session that all these churches (anonymous, self-appointed doctrine and vocabulary police have been working on a list) be expelled?
Actually, it could be worse and probably will be, since there are not a few misogynists and sexist SBCers who gleefully pursue any avenue to degrade, demean, and dismiss women. I do not attribute that attitude to Mike Law with whom I have had a single, congenial conversation. He is a zealot for the amendment. I do not judge his state of mind towards females.
I am rather nonplussed about exactly how the amendment would play out, but it's not unreasonable to expect proponents to go for the maximum impact: dismiss the churches.
It could be worse in a secondary manner in that the wording of the amendment applies to "affirm" and "appoint" not just "employ" a woman as "pastor of any kind." The inexact meaning of "affirm" could mean any public comment by a church staff member or lay church member. I suppose I could be guilty of affirming women as pastors, since I see no issue whatsoever with any woman serving as a sub-pastor under the authority of the male senior pastor. Maybe I'll join Mike Law's church and put that small congregation in jeopardy. Maybe he wouldn't have me :).
Or, whaddabout this business of "appoint?" A church has a volunteer preschool leader. The church calls that volunteer a "pastor," he or she shepherds the little runny-nosed delights. Expel the sister who gives her time effort and Kleenexes to that worthy cause? Nuts!
Here's the worst problem: No one really cares. The denomination is in free fall. Another (old) abuse case lawsuit hit the SBCEC and SBC inbox just this week. Does the EC even have insurance anymore to manage these things which will doubtless grow? I don't know the answer to that.
And the most salient whaddabout: How could our sages on the EC, about eight dozen of them, possibly be trusted to handle this when they have done so poorly finding a CEO and managing current crises? Good people can utterly fail as a group decision-making body. No leadership. No solutions.
If the goal is to burn the SBC down, and I don't doubt that to be the aim of many, this amendment is like kerosene.
____________________
Whaddabout the Super Bowl, William?
This year, like most, it will be a good excuse to eat unhealthy food. I'm going to do my part.
No comments:
Post a Comment