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.