By Andrew Gardner
The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant group in the United States, overwhelmingly voted to expel two congregations with women pastors on June 14, 2023, during their annual convention.
SBC messengers, as convention delegates are called, also put forward an amendment to make churches’ membership within the denomination contingent upon prohibiting women pastors, which will be voted on next year.
Media coverage of this debate has focused on gender. However, as a scholar of Baptists in the U.S., I believe an underlying conversation about sexuality has also shaped the church’s opposition to women preaching.
A denomination’s decisions about one social issue often influence its position on others, as I have written about with sociologist Gerardo Marti. We argue that the SBC’s stance on issues of gender and sexuality have not always been just about fidelity to their interpretation of scripture. Rather, the SBC uses these issues to differentiate itself from other, more progressive denominations.
My recent book, “Binkley: A Congregational History,” examines the history of one of the first congregations to be expelled from the SBC over the issue of sexuality, in 1992.
Gay and called
In 1990, a Duke Divinity School student named John Blevins, who was openly gay, began attending the Olin T. Binkley Memorial Baptist Church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. After his first year of Divinity School, he approached the church about the possibility of being ordained.
Blevins was drawn to Binkley for its progressive theology. Founded in 1958, the church became an interracial congregation and supported the Civil Rights Movement at a time when many Southern Baptist churches prohibited Black worshippers from becoming members or even attending Sunday services. Later, the congregation called women to serve as associate pastors and, ultimately, senior pastor as well.
Blevins’ request for ordination raised questions among some of Binkley’s leaders and members. Between 1976 and 1991, the SBC had passed six resolutions on homosexuality. The first encouraged congregations “not to afford the practice of homosexuality any degree of approval through ordination, employment, or other designations of normal life-style.” Subsequent resolutions grew increasing harsh. In 1988, the SBC passed a resolution that declared homosexuality an “abomination in the sight of God.”
Convention resolutions are not binding on individual congregations, however, and many members of Binkley thought about sexuality differently. Senior pastor Linda Jordan thought that since Blevins was still completing his divinity degree, the church should license him to preach, but wait to formally ordain – meaning he could not preside over communion or weddings, nor hold the title of Reverend.
The church went through a yearlong process of studying faith and sexuality as members wrestled with Blevins’ request. In April 1992, the congregation voted to license Blevins to preach the Gospel.
Removal from the SBC
That same year, in Raleigh, North Carolina, Pullen Memorial Baptist Church held a ceremony to honor a same-sex union. As Pullen’s pastor Mahan Siler reflected in 2022, it was a first: “there wasn’t a congregation we knew out there who we could learn from.”
Both congregations’ decisions drew the ire of the North Carolina Baptist Convention, as well as the national convention of the SBC, where messengers voted to expel both churches. Minutes from the meeting note that the crowd burst into the “appearance of elation” at the decision.
Messengers proceeded to propose an amendment that congregations “which act to affirm, approve or endorse homosexual behavior” would not be “in friendly cooperation with the Convention.” It was adopted the following year.
Barring membership to the SBC over the issue of sexuality presented an opportunity for conservatives who also opposed women’s leadership. During the same meeting, in 1993, another proposed amendment sought to prohibit the membership of churches that ordained women.
The proposal failed before being put to a convention-wide vote. Yet it shows how issues of sexuality and gender were entwined for conservative members of the SBC, who sought similar constitutional amendments for both. One amendment created the opportunity for the other.
AP Photo/Jessie Wardarski
‘Logical consequence’
The amendment the SBC is currently considering, which seeks to prohibit women pastors, acknowledges this history.
Mike Law, the Virginia pastor who proposed the amendment, does not seek to block women from ordination, as the proposal put forward in 1993 would have done. Rather, his amendment seeks to block women from holding the title of “pastor”. This distinction would allow women to be ordained and serve as other types of church leaders, such as deacons or missionaries.
In a series of videos he released before the vote, Law described the issue of women pastors as a “canary in the coal mine.” “Once a denomination allows female pastors it’s usually just a matter of time until they affirm practicing homosexuals as pastors,” he said.
Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offered a similar concern on his blog in 2018. “The same negotiation and ‘reinterpretation’ of the biblical text that allows for the service of women pastors will logically lead to the acceptance of the LGBT revolution,” he argued.
Both men, in other words, believe one kind of acceptance leads inevitably to the other – the proverbial slippery slope. The SBC’s history suggests that “slippery slope” could easily cut the other way, too: Once a denomination rejects gay pastors, it may only be a matter of time until it rejects women pastors, too.
Either way, when the SBC is wrestling with issues of gender, issues of sexuality are not too far away.
Andrew Gardner is a postdoctoral research fellow at Baylor University.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Atwp says
SBC didn’t want African American members. Pretty sure they wanted our money. White religious men are the worse. Who did Jesus exclude when he was on this earth? Best for me to close my comments now.
Deborah Coffey says
Speaking of sexuality issues, what does the SBC plan to do with all their child sex abusers?
https://www.vox.com/culture/23131530/southern-baptist-convention-sexual-abuse-scandal-guidepost
R.S. says
I’ve always been struck by the weirdness of a belief that a supreme being that has created this vast and puzzling expanse of universe would give one hoot about what we do with our procreative equipment. I always think of Charles Bukowski’s comment: “We’re all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn’t. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing.”
G A says
There has always been a segment of the human population that feels a need to be told what to do and when to do it going back thousands of years. They will wear that coat until it’s rags or until they find it too constricting and take it off. Sad.
don miller says
These are articles by people that are unfamiliar with scripture yet claim to know all. All SB pastors subscribe to the belief that all scripture is inspired by God and valuable for correction, reproof and teaching in order to be ordained SB pastors . When they chose to revolt against their vows of ordination they need to be corrected themselves. If they refuse to repent, then the Bible they preach calls for their disfellowship. The Bible clearly defines the qualifications to be a pastor, speaks clearly on marriage genders and homosexuality. If you don’t want to believe nor preach the Bible you should leave yourself and not force others to take God required action to send you out. .
Pierre Tristam says
“The Bible” nowhere defines what a “pastor”‘s qualifications should be since there were no pastors when men wrote it. Nor does “The Bible” speak clearly at all on sexuality. To the contrary. What men wrote in Leviticus, for example, was made inapplicable to Christians who follow the New Testament, which nowhere imposes the outdated norms of the ancient world. Being aware of “The Bible”‘s eternal contradictions should not be confused with unfamiliarity.
donald edwin miller says
you must go to the root meaning of the language scripture was written in. Which, was not english.
Episkopos
Bishop/overseer is also used to describe the office of an elder or a pastor. The Greek term is “episkopos”. This same word is also translated as an elder, pastor, or overseer, and all refer to the same role as the leader of a local church.
Then you read 1 Timothy , 1 Corinthians, Titus, Romans 1 + , read Acts 20, etc… There are many passages in the NT that describe the duties and qualifications of Patsor/overseer. Thank you for the opportunity to provide more enlightenment. A surface reading or man made realignment of scripture leads to misgivings. We are interested in the deep truth, right? Paul says that ALL scripture comes from God who inspires men to write it as is. Paul ought to know, he spent 3 years alone learning with Jesus as his apostle. Romans 1 answers the lbgtq question and Romans 2 what becomes of those that approve/ignore it and other sins, and what scripture says about it. 1 Timothy 3 is one scripture that defines minimum qualifications of oveseer/pastor/elder/ deacon. Husband of one wife. If you are going to hang your hat on not being able to find the english word Pastor in the NT, you win. But only in an earthly context.
Pierre Tristam says
You are again confusing Old and New (the Old being written in Hebrew, the New in Greek), but far be it for me to get into a debate about what length beard is more appropriate to a believer and what number of syllables are necessary to give a prejudice scriptural heft. Psalms also advise you to bash the head of infants on stones. That doesn’t mean we should bash the heads of infants on stones. Put aside your literalism and apply a little compassion to your fellow men, women and others in the here and now.
don miller says
not confused. all my quotes were from NT. That is why they call it new . It is the new covenant under which salvation is realized. no longer by works and strict obedience of the old testament which no one could keep perfectly when perfection was required. The NT or new covenant (and it is the last covenant) says nothing in the Bible is to be changed to suit whims of change and that it is perfect as is. Telling people they can negotiate the NT into saying what they want to assuage their sin and rebellion is not compassionate. Compassion is telling them the truth about what the Bible says. Whether they like what they hear or not, God says it is nonnegotiable and won’t be changed. Matthew 5.
Ray W. says
Thomas Jefferson bequeathed the contents of his library to the American people. Long ago, researchers found in storage at the Library of Congress several of his Bibles, from which portions had been cut out. Looking further, a Bible was found that contained passages in Greek, Latin, French and English. It seems that Jefferson put great effort into cutting out portions from four different Bibles and pasting the comparable passages side-by-side on his personal Bible. According to an NPR documentary on the subject, Jefferson spent a significant sum of money having his personal Bible bound by a well-known bookbinder.
Jefferson, educated in the style of the Scottish Enlightenment, had achieved fluency in Latin and Greek. Being an envoy to France during parts of the Revolution and, later, the American ambassador to France, helped him achieve fluency in French.
Is it possible that Jefferson, experienced as he was and wise to the foibles of the human existence, wanted to better study and understand the Bible from four different perspectives? Having read Jefferson’s famous letter to his nephew, written upon the nephew’s graduation from a Scottish Enlightenment affiliated American university, I am aware that on that occasion, Jefferson expressed a belief that God had gifted humanity with the capacity to reason, perhaps God’s greatest gift to us all. If Jefferson believed what he wrote, does this support an argument that Jefferson understood that comparing different translations of the New Testament would give him better insights into his beliefs about God?
Curiosity aroused by this comment thread, I looked up the root of the term “husband.” It comes from the Old Norse term “husbondi.” “Hus” meant “house.” “Bondi” meant “dweller.” The term dates from the 9th century. I suppose both men and women can dwell in houses, but I accept the idea that husband has long held a masculine persona.
Does the core of the argument in this comment thread center on one definition of a pagan term that may have been imported into the British Isles during the many Norse invasions, a pagan term that centuries later was adapted into the King James version of the Bible? This raises the question of whether Old Norsemen had Timothy in mind when they created the term, and whether Timothy understood that future translations of his writings would occur when he wrote what he wrote and, further, whether Timothy’s intent was fully and accurately translated by those who collaborated to create the King James version of the Bible.
Having read The Edges of Language many decades ago, I remain influenced by the idea that mankind, being finite, cannot ever fully understand an infinite God. However, endowed with the spark of divinity, it is mankind’s innate and insuppressible desire to constantly attempt to better understand God. One way to attempt the unachievable is to expand the boundaries of language in hopes of ever coming closer to a fuller understanding of God’s will. Einstein spent the vast majority of his life attempting to create a “unified field theory” so that, as he put it, he could have a “conversation with God.”
It has long been held in philosophy that there are three great unanswerable questions in life. How shall I live my life? How shall I be governed? How do I know what I know? It is also held that we shall spend our lives attempting to answer these unanswerable questions. The moment we announce that we have answered any one of the great questions is the moment we have lost the quest.
Don miller just might be right. Then again, he might be wrong. Oy vey!
Laurel says
Ray W.: I’m clearly not a philosopher, as those are not the questions I ask. I have two questions, one that no one has yet answered, satisfactory to me, and one no one has yet answered in agreement with me. The first question is: How is it that even the tiniest life form understands the concept of death? “Instinct” is not a word that works well for me. The second question is: Isn’t it something that we are conscience right here, right now? All who I have asked answered “no.”
Laurel says
Don Miller: I had an epiphany (a sudden insight or intuitive understanding} while studying the history of modern art, that people could be controlled at great distances through religion.
Deborah Coffey says
The ONLY thing in the Bible that “counts,” is “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Let’s try that in Hebrew or Greek.
James Gleaton says
Some of the writers of parts of the Bible were anti-lgbt. God is not anti-lgbt. God does reject or hate people whom God created gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender or intersex, regardless of the opinions of some of the writers of parts of the Bible. Instead, God’s ethical expectation is this: “So always treat others as you would want them to treat you; that is the Law and the Prophets.” – Matthew 7:12, New Jerusalem Bible.
Skibum says
Have you never engaged in this common and often repeated exercise: you are part of a large group of people, and only one person in this group hears a story and is told to repeat the story to the next person, who does the same until the story makes its way through the entire group. The last person to be told the story retells the story he heard aloud so everyone can hear it. Then the original story is read allowed and everyone is then able to tell just how convoluted and different the story ultimately became by the time it was retold and retold many times by different people. Now imagine the various books of the Bible, translated over and over by different people over thousands of years, usually men, from many different countries and who speak different languages. Aside from the fact that we probably would have had much different translations and meanings if they had been translated by women instead of men, how in the world would anyone come to the conclusion that the original intent and meaning of ancient scripture written by men, translated by many others who didn’t even speak the same language, and occurred over thousands of years could be what was originally written? Especially when you consider that history has shown that many, if not all of the world’s main religions made their own church rules and doctrine that enshrined power in the top hierarchy in order to control the masses and enrich those at the top. If people stopped trying to make up religious rules to punish and rule over other people’s lives, and instead merely asked themselves “What would Jesus do?” and followed the two main commandments for people to love God and love one another, humanity would not have all of the problems, corruption and violence so prevalent all over the world that we have seen in every culture, every society, and every formal religion on earth.
Deborah Coffey says
Amen.
James Gleaton says
There is not now, nor has there ever been, anybody who agrees with everything that is written in the Bible. The numerous contradictions and historical/scientific errors in the Bible make that clear. It is up to each reader to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
For example, Matthew 7:12 is wheat; Leviticus 25:44-46 is chaff. Exodus 21:7 is also chaff, as is Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Timothy 2:12.
When someone says, “The Bible clearly says….”, that person is trying to use the Bible as a drunk man uses a lamppost, for support rather than for illumination.
James Gleaton says
Whenever someone says, “The Bible clearly says…”, it usually means that the speaker has not actually done an honest and thorough study of the Bible. Otherwise, the speaker would have realized that there are numerous contradictions, as well as historical/scientific errors. It is up to each reader to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Laurel says
“Once a denomination allows female pastors it’s usually just a matter of time until they affirm practicing homosexuals as pastors.”
So, women are the gateway to homosexuality? Bizarre thought process.
In 1988, the SBC passed a resolution that declared homosexuality an “abomination in the sight of God.” They pass resolutions for God? They even know what God sees? Wow, churches are even stranger than I thought!
According to southern, baptist churches, are they saying that this is what Jesus would do?
…not with a ten foot pole. I like logic too much.
can'tfoolme says
The SBC is one of the few denominations which has not watered down the scriptures to please and fit the desires and lifestyles of society. Lifestyles may change and try to rationalize the changes but God does not change – his word in the beginning of time will still be the same at the end of time.
JimBob says
The SBC was formed in Augusta, Georgia in 1845 for the express purpose of providing a theological justification for black chattel slavery. It supported slavery, white supremacy, antisemitism and forced conversion on into the 21st century. Many survivors still yet regret having adhered to its doctrines.
Laurel says
God, to me, is all of everything. God is male, female and all spectrum. God is we. We are the earth, the sun, the moon all the universes beyond. We are rocks, soil, trees, birds, cats, clouds, words, breath, water, fields, thought, happy, sad, good, bad and everything beyond. We are electrical, we are never really stagnant, but always kinetic. To narrow us down to written words, when no words can define us, is to limit us all.
While religion tries to guide us, it often is misinterpreted and frequently misdirects. We fail to understand the infiniteness of us, the we, the God.
Sherry says
Extremely well stated Laurel! My spiritual belief as well. . . certainly echos Buddhist philosophy.
Regarding words from the bible= which were translated and mistranslated over and over. . . written by men and never meant to be taken “literally”. Ever hear of a metaphor? There are some good teachings of acceptance and kindness that need to be “preached” again, and again, and again!
Laurel says
Sherry: It is my understanding that the Emperor Justinian took reincarnation out of the bible because he simply didn’t want to come back as a lessor being. That would certainly explain why Baptists take everything in the bible literally, except being born again!
Sherry says
Hi Laurel,
Exactly. . . and, that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how the words in the bible were intentionally taken out or twisted by the clergy . . . primarily in order to control the uneducated masses over the centuries.
Which is obviously, unfortunately still going on today in 2023!
One of the many reasons why, although my spirituality is extremely strong, I will never be ruled by any organized religion.
Ban Racist Ron says
Ban religious hate, tax the churches. Remove racist Ron and his followers as they are the most corrupt officials in the nation are an embarassment to the human race, our broken political system, and leaders anywhere.
Atwp says
Gods word is truth. Was once a member of a white congregation, mistake. Didn’t know about the white church pro slavery views as I do today other wise I wouldn’t haven’t gone to any white churches. The thing is now I know and don’t plan to visit another white church. I would that no person of color visit s white church, that is their choice.
Laurel says
Atwp: I’m going to say something one more time to you, then I’m done. If you believe that all of black men, through history, could not, cannot have the capacity of evil or hate, you are kidding yourself. Black Africans sold black Africans to the slave market. Black Americans held black slaves. People are people, and all colors and religions have the capacity to be cruel, selfish and hateful. Your constant attack on white people, especially white men, shows me that you forgot that the white Union fought against slavery. That young, white people were killed during the fight for civil rights and stood by their black friends until death. That a white President signed the Emancipation Proclamation. That white Presidents signed in civil rights.
Now it’s up to you. You can hold onto your hatred of white people, the way Dude wants to hold onto his hatred of old people. Your choice, to hold onto your misery or not.
Atwp says
Laurel, I’m done with you too. I’m not a two year old kid. I know all people have the ability to be evil and do evil things. White people particularly white men do so much evil and most of the time go unpunished. White men have murdered so many people only God know the number. White men are the reason millions upon millions of people are in their graves today. People of color kill too but white men carry evil to the extremes. Laurel you may be done with me, that o.k. You know I’m telling the truth about white men, and black men. As I said before and will say again, I would that white peoples go through the pain they put on other people. I want them to suffer like they caused other people to suffer. I would that black women call on white people like white Karens call on black people. White people white women in particular love to call the police on black people especially black men. Their statements are we look suspicious, we fit the description, they the white women feel uncomfortable. Of course the white cops come and investigate and sometimes they kill the black person and get away with murder, just because an a white person called most of the time a white woman. To sum up my comments, I don’t like white people especially white women. A white woman is the reason why Emmitt Tills met an early death. You should know the recent calls white women made against black peoples. Starbucks a few years ago, a black man in Central Park NYC., black people having a picnic in a park, a young girl selling water. These are just a few of the calls white women made on black people. People tending to their own business and white women call on them. White women are the most protected people in this country I guess that give them the freedom to try to make trouble for people of color. What is worse is the cops believe them and sometimes death occurs against the people of color.