A Lost Opportunity for Bold Witness

21 But how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” 22 (His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.) 23 Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.” (John 9:21-23 ESV)

The healed man had already given his testimony of Jesus' sight-giving power. The man's parents point the religious leaders back to the man: thus, back to his testimony. However, the healed man's parents point to their son's testimony indirectly and fearfully. Despite what they told the religious leaders, the man's parents apparently knew that Jesus was responsible for their son's healing, for the text does NOT state that his parents said, 'we do not know who opened his eyes' because they truly did not know: RATHER, they said 'we do not know who opened his eyes' "because they feared the Jews". These parents missed their opportunity to be recorded in Scripture throughout history as having given a bold witness for Jesus. They feared people more than they loved the truth. The synagogue was supposed to be a place where they would learn of the Messiah and where they would be encouraged to place their hope in Him. But they valued membership in the synagogue as a kind of community meeting-place more than they valued fellowship with the Messiah.

Expert Witnesses

His parents answered, "We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. (John 9:20 ESV)

The parents were expert witnesses concerning the healed man's identity. Specifically, they were well-qualified to speak concerning the man's physical origin and natural condition. They did not need special revelation from God for the testimony they were able to give. The religious leaders, seeking to evade the testimony concerning Jesus, turned to genuine experts, but they asked them to speak outside their area of expertise.

Is Genesis Literal or Allegorical? - Dr. Mitchell Chase

On the Failure of the Law Amendment and the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (of all people). This law defined marriage, for purposes of federal policy, as being exclusively between one man and one woman. This is not ancient history; some people reading this blog will remember DOMA.

What you might not remember is that at that time, there was also a call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that marriage would be constitutionally defined as exclusively between one man and one woman. One reason that the Republican-controlled Congress in 1996, which had a veto-proof majority, let the call for a constitutional amendment be squashed is is that they said DOMA was sufficient. They thought DOMA showed that the American people were largely in agreement about marriage, and that a constitutional amendment was unnecessary. A few years later, with increasing threats to DOMA, a series of Republicans in Congress tried to bring forward a Federal Marriage Amendment, but by that time there was even less momentum than in 1996 for such an action.

Fast-forward to 2015, when the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision declared a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. If Republicans in 1996 had completed their job and had gotten a marriage amendment added to the U.S. Constitution, then the Supreme Court in 2015 would not have been able to rule that the Constitution gave the right for same-sex marriage.

In the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) annual meeting earlier this week, messengers to the Convention had an opportunity to pass an amendment to the SBC constitution, which would have stated that cooperating churches would not 'affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind'. This amendment to the SBC constitution required a 2/3 majority vote over two years. At the 2023 SBC annual meeting in New Orleans, this amendment (commonly called the "Law amendment," after Mike Law, who proposed it), passed with the required 2/3 majority. In the time between the 2023 meeting and the 2024 meeting, a few influential leaders in the SBC argued that the Law amendment was unnecessary due to recent positive, Scripture-honoring actions of the Convention. Those voices were persuasive, and the 2024 vote on the Law amendment fell short of the required 2/3.

The SBC in 2024 had the opportunity to shore up our position regarding pastoral ministry, further clarifying our constitutional language. But by a few percentage points, we lost that opportunity. Since we did not complete the work we began, we will likely not have another opportunity at the constitutional level, and those of us who believe in the biblical model of the pastoral office–even some who voted against the Law amendment–will come to regret a failure to get this language into our constitution. Twenty-five or thirty years from now (if the Lord has not returned), all conservative members of SBC-affiliated churches may look back to 2024 as a turning point in Convention history.

Though I am gravely disappointed by the failure of the Law amendment, and I am seriously concerned about the future of the SBC, in the short-term I believe that–regarding the issue under consideration–there have been many positive actions taken by the Convention. On Tuesday of this week, the Convention found First Baptist Church of Alexandria, VA, not to be in friendly cooperation with the SBC (meaning that they can no longer register messengers to the SBC), because FBC Alexandria affirms woman pastors (including an affirmation of women serving in the senior pastor role). Though the Law amendment failed, the Convention elected Clint Pressley, a vocal supporter of the Law amendment, as SBC President. Therefore, no conservative should urge his or her church to leave the SBC due to this issue. However, we will need to remain vigilant. For (at least) the next two SBC presidents following Pressley, it will be important for messengers to ask candidates to the office about how they voted regarding the Law amendment.

"How then does he now see?"

and [they] asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?" (John 9:19 ESV)

This question from the religious leaders to the parents concerning how the blind man came to see was a mere evasion. They had already heard the answer to this question: the answer that pointed to Jesus and His divine power. In vain, they sought an alternate explanation. Apart from trust in Christ, we will be continually frustrated. Our hearts must rest in Christ, worshiping Him for who He is and what He has done.

Unbelief

The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight, (John 9:18 ESV)

The doubting Jewish religious leaders already had the testimony of the healed man himself and the testimony of the crowd. They did not believe because that did not want to accept the conclusion that Jesus was (at least) a prophet: that He was someone able to do miracles, that He was someone with divine authority, and that they should listen to Him.

"He Is a Prophet"

So they said again to the blind man, "What do you say about Him, since He has opened your eyes?" He said, "He is a prophet." (John 9:17 ESV)

Though the man's eyes had been completely healed, John still refers to him as "the blind man." This is fitting, because the man is still in intellectual darkness, not yet adequately recognizing who Jesus is. His confession is true–Jesus is a prophet–but Jesus is so much more than just a prophet.

Constitutional Amendment at the Upcoming Southern Baptist Convention - Dr. Albert Mohler Weighs In

  

At the upcoming annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in Indianapolis, IN (June 11-12, 2024), messengers to the Convention will vote on an amendment to the SBC Constitution. As described in the Baptist Press: "Mike Law, pastor of Arlington (Va.) Baptist Church, originally introduced a motion at the 2022 SBC Annual Meeting in Anaheim to add a sixth item to the SBC Constitution, Article III: that cooperating churches would not 'affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind'" [emphasis added]. Messengers to the 2023 SBC Annual Meeting in New Orleans approved the Law amendment with 2/3 vote. In order for the change to be enacted, according to the rules of the Convention, another vote must be taken at this year's SBC, with 2/3 messengers again approving the amendment.

Some leaders within the SBC have been urging a "no" vote, as they feel the Law amendment to be unnecessarily divisive and a possible violation of local church autonomy. I am thankful that, as seen in the video above, Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is urging a "yes" vote. As quoted in the Baptist Press, Dr. Mohler has stated:

I see it as not only something that we need to pass, but we need to just have it as a part of our bylaws in such a way that it settles a question.... Southern Baptists really do believe in the autonomy of the local church. We can’t force any church to be a part of the Southern Baptist Convention. But the SBC also has the responsibility to define what are the boundaries, what is the basis, the foundation for the cooperation that brings us together for common work.