There it was, on page 26 of the June 10th issue of The Economist. “The Big Uneasy,” the headline read, and there was the by-line, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. “Getting ready for a row over women at the annual meeting in New Orleans” read the lead. It was about the Southern Baptist Convention. Old news? Not exactly.
They met the next week, but it was hardly a row. Approximately 88% of the over 12,000 messengers in attendance voted in favor of expelling Saddleback Church (the California congregation for 42 years pastored by the recently retired author of The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren), because it employed a female pastor. Three other churches were expelled for the same reason, one in Jackson.
Shortly after those votes, messengers also approved an amendment to the SBC constitution that would prohibit any SBC church from employing any woman for any pastoral position. This was not a vote by ballot but by a show of hands (actually color-coded cards). Observers indicated it was a closer vote than the one on church expulsions and was ruled to be in favor of the amendment by the chair.
And so that is why The Economist‘s correspondent, Kennett Werner, showed up in Hattiesburg, Mississippi at University Baptist Church on Sunday morning, June 4th — to look in on a Baptist church with a female pastor, a church, he discovered, that had remained, by mistake, on SBC’s “roll” of churches. Our pastor and several members explained to him after the service that University Baptist departed the SBC over 30 years ago when the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was formed in 1991.
The Economist is hardly a household word in south Mississippi, unlike USA Today maybe or The Wall Street Journal. The Economist originated in 1843 in Scotland and today has 21 offices in 14 countries across all six inhabited continents. According to its website, the magazine’s constitution prohibits any individual or organization from gaining a majority of shares and thereby controlling editorial policy. The Economist Group sees itself as “a staunchly independent global media and information-services company.”
And so there was young Mr. Werner sitting in the back of our sanctuary that Sunday morning. Why? Why might The Economist, a world-wide media conglomerate, be interested in the Southern Baptist Convention’s stance on women pastors and University Baptist Church in Hattiesburg, Mississippi?
I don’t know the inner workings of international news gathering, but two highly probable reasons come to mind. Neither is merely old news. First, in relegating women to secondary status in their churches, the Southern Baptist Convention is resisting cultural movements around the world that recognize and promote political equality of men and women as well as their freedom to develop their individual and unique capabilities wherever they may lead.
Other protestant traditions, however, have embraced those movements and have no problem encouraging women to pursue pastoral roles — United Methodists, for example, American Baptist Churches — USA, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Episcopalians, and churches in the Pentecostal tradition. Clearly either God is speaking differently to different people or people are hearing God’s words differently. The former seems unlikely.
A second reason The Economist (as well as USA Today and The New York Times) may have been interested in the actions of the Southern Baptist Convention (as well as a Baptist church in the deep south that thrives with the leadership of a female pastor) is that most Southern Baptists identify as evangelicals, and evangelicals form the core of former President Trump’s base.
The votes at the SBC meetings were the former President’s base flexing its muscles regarding the role of women in American life. SBC leaders have created a term for it: complementarianism, which, according to The Economist means “the idea that men and women occupy distinct but equal roles, with men exercising spiritual authority.” The SBC votes defined a red line they were unwilling to cross.
So, as with so many other issues swirling around the Trump Presidency, the question is: What kind of world do you want to live in? — and your children to live in? If you have a daughter, niece, or sister, for example, do you want her to be hemmed in by church doctrine as she is discovering her capabilities, her talents, even her calling; or do you want her to be as free as her father was, or her nephew or brother is, to live out her passion, her talents, her calling? She, choosing freely, not church doctrine choosing for her?
—
Dr. Conville is a university professor (ret.) and long-time resident of Hattiesburg. He can be reached at rlconville@yahoo.com.
