Let me just say up front that my title is intentionally provocative, and I offer it with a bit of a tongue-in-cheek. After all, who does Denny Burk think he is to pose as the authoritative interpreter of an amendment penned by someone else?
The truth is that I’m actually not an authority in that sense because I’m not the author. Having said that, I do know what the author intended. But perhaps just as important, I know something of how the grammar and syntax of the proposal point toward a very specific meaning (pun intended).
So for those of you nerdy enough to get down into the weeds for a minute, here’s my exegesis of the final clause of the Truth and Unity Amendment. The amendment says that a church in friendly cooperation…
“Does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, specifically preaching to the assembled congregation.”
The contested phrase is the last one beginning with “specifically.”
There has been a lot of discussion online about what “specifically” means, and whether it modifies office, function, or both. The truth is that it doesn’t matter which it modifies, because of what “specifically” means.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “specifically” means “to be precise, in particular.” The term focuses on one characteristic of an item that may very well have other characteristics. In other words, “specifically” specifies one trait while neither affirming nor denying the presence of other traits.
I tell my son, “Don’t watch TV, don’t turn on your phone, and don’t spill your food.” He turns the TV on anyway. So I say, “I specifically told you not to turn on the TV.”
“Specifically” does not mean that I only gave him one prohibition. It means I’m specifying the one he’s breaking. It doesn’t mean that there weren’t other prohibitions or that they can’t be broken.
Likewise in the amendment, “specifically” specifies one particular function of the office without denying that there are other functions. Or to put it another way, it specifies one prohibition without denying that there are other prohibitions.
As Baptists, everyone on all sides of this debate agrees that the office of pastor has many different functions, one of which is preaching to the gathered assembly. Therefore, it would be illegitimate to interpret the amendment in a way that suggests that the office or function of a pastor is singular. It isn’t.
Nevertheless, for the purposes of “composition” in our Constitution, the amendment specifies “preaching to the gathered assembly” as the one function that we have near unanimity about among Southern Baptists. Whatever the other functions of the office, we all agree that preaching to the gathered assembly is prohibited to women.
Bottom Line: “Specifically” specifies our agreement on this particular prohibition without commenting on other potential prohibitions.
This interpretation should allay concerns on all sides of this debate. Here’s why.
For those who are concerned that the amendment limits the office or function of pastor to preaching, “specifically” does no such thing. It merely specifies one particular function without foreclosing the existence of other functions (see above).
For those who are concerned that the “function” language authorizes the Credentials Committee to apply “function” too broadly, this amendment does no such thing. The Credentials Committee and messengers get that power from Bylaw 8, not from this or any other amendment. The Credentials Committee and messengers can overreach or under-reach with or without this amendment. Anyone fearing overreach should be trying to change Bylaw 8, not opposing the Truth and Unity Amendment.
The language of this amendment is solid. It reflects the beliefs of about 90% of the messengers on this matter (see votes to remove Saddleback, Fern Creek, and other churches). Let’s go to Orlando and get this thing done. I hope to see you there.
