A few thoughts on my perspective on the upcoming Law Amendment vote at the SBC: 1. I am complementarian. I believe in distinct genders (male and female) and distinct gender roles. I live this out in my own home, marriage, and church. 2. I believe women have important roles of service in the church, and can lead and teach in many capacities. 3. I appreciate and have benefitted so much from many female church members, teachers, theologians, and leaders through the years. 4. Yet, I believe the office of pastor/elder/bishop is reserved for men as qualified by Scripture (1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Tim 3 seem clear on this point). 5. I have not, do not, and would not title any females on our church staff as ‘pastor,’ nor would they function in that office. 6. I think churches that give a pastoral title to a female staff member are (at best) using the title in an unhelpful, confusing, and biblically imprecise way. 7. I think churches who have female senior pastors are clearly not where Southern Baptists are. 8. Clarity on gender distinctions and roles is helpful and increasingly necessary in today’s gender-confused world. With that said, I will not be voting for the Law Amendment. Here’s why: 1. It’s unnecessary. Just last year we disfellowshipped 2 churches for their departure from the BF&M 2000 on this matter. IOW, we already have a mechanism to do this. 2. It’s unclear. Clarity is good, but the Law Amendment creates as many questions as it does answers and uses unclear language (What does it mean to ‘affirm’ a pastor? Does saying nice things about them count? What does ‘any kind of pastor’ mean - I thought ‘pastor’ just meant one thing?). 3. It’s unhelpful. In cases where churches have a female children’s pastor, for instance, this is going to force our hand to disfellowship them, even though they may not mean the same thing most others mean by ‘pastor.’ While I think that would be a wrong use of the title, I don’t think it rises to the level of disfellowshipping. Some of my friends differentiate between the office of elder and the role of pastor, using ‘pastor’’ as a title in the same way many would use ‘minister.’ While I think it’s a mistake to see elder and pastor as different, my disagreement doesn’t rise to the level of not being able still to cooperate. It seems to me that a church with a female senior pastor is in a very different category than a church that calls their female children’s minister a children’s ‘pastor’ but still believes the office of elder should be reserved for men. It’s unhelpful to be forced to disfellowship the latter. I’d rather persuade than expel. 4. It’s a departure from several historic norms. For instance, historically, ‘pastor’ in the BF&M was understood by many to refer to the office of senior pastor (not staff positions). And historically, we have cooperated with churches that use these titles in a variety of ways. And historically, we’ve allowed churches to have some areas of disagreement with the BF&M and still cooperate. The Law Amendment represents a change of precedent, one that I don’t think we need and I think could set a harmful new precedent on other matters in the BF&M where Southern Baptists disagree. I don’t say this with any ill intent toward Southern Baptists who disagree. I respect the reasons some support the Law Amendment. I also don’t think that those who support the amendment are anti-women, just as I don’t think those who oppose the amendment are egalitarian (or anything close). I’m praying for unity for our convention and that we can focus on the mission moving forward, regardless of how the vote goes.