Affirming Ontology and Rejecting Theological Liberalism
A Map for SBC26 and America
This week, the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting is taking place in Orlando, Florida. A new constitutional amendment proposed by R. Albert Mohler Jr., the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), seeks to prohibit women from assuming pastoral office or taking on the functions of a pastor in SBC churches. The amendment was passed on Wednesday morning and will need to be affirmed by a two-thirds majority next year to be put into effect.
This battle is part and parcel of a broader fight: a war against theological liberalism. Under Mohler’s leadership, the SBC demonstrates how the church should respond to our increasingly androgynous age.
The Multi-Generational War Against Theological Liberalism
As a student at Southern, Mohler sat in classrooms with professors who rejected the Bible. Then, in February 1993, the trustees of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary entrusted the convention’s flagship school to Mohler, the youngest president in the seminary’s history. Over the next three decades, Mohler’s fight has been comprised of many sleepless nights, tears, and deep cries to the Lord—but he has achieved his main goal: preserving orthodoxy.
The mission to preserve the Church is a charge handed down from Christ Himself. As recorded in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus stated that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church (Matt 16:18). Mohler has faithfully served on the front line, obeying the words of Christ and laboring to preserve the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). When referencing the faith, Mohler states, “It was delivered to the saints then to be protected. By implication of our one savior and faith it is also ours to contend for in our day.” The debate over the office of elder is not merely another theological discussion; it is a struggle for the integrity of the gospel and for the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ against the encroachment of theological liberalism.
The modern threat of progressive Christianity was originally identified and rejected by J. Gresham Machen. Before founding Westminster Theological Seminary, Machen served as professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary in the early 20th century. His departure came at great professional cost, but the sacrifice was necessary for his personal faith. In a letter to his mother, Machen expressed his desire to leave Princeton, which was promoting a liberal persuasion of so-called Christianity.
Professors at Princeton Theological Seminary embraced tenets of German higher criticism and the Social Gospel Movement promoted by Friedrich Schliermacher, Walter Rauschenbusch, and Albrecht Ritschl. Machen recognized the inevitable destruction that their ideas would cause and vehemently argued against them. The academics and pastors Mohler has contended against are the children of the liberal theology advanced by these scholars.
Soon after the introduction of theological liberalism, mainline Protestant churches began compromising on Scripture, and by 1970, many had revised the historic orthodox stance on the office of elder. For the first time, men and women did not have distinct roles within the church. In 2024, the United Methodist Church even allowed LGBTQ individuals to occupy the office of elder. Downstream from liberalism, the eradication of gender distinction has infected mainline Protestantism—yet the SBC remains a Protestant defender of the male-only elder.
Preserving orthodoxy from the threat of liberalism is not a debate over theological distinctives. It is a debate for the very heart of the Gospel, with the salvation of souls at stake. Machen warned us of the threat of liberal theology, and Mohler has fought against it for over 30 years. The influx of women occupying the office of elder and the rejection of the clear teachings of Scripture are integrated components of theological liberalism. The church must heed the warnings of Machen and Mohler and preserve orthodoxy.
Affirming Scripture, Rejecting Liberalism
Affirming orthodoxy begins with accepting the Bible as the word of God. Throughout Martin Luther’s quarrel with the Church in Rome, he held to the faith by always deferring to the Scriptures. Machen affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture as authoritative in matters of salvation and living. At The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, all faculty must sign the historic Abstract of Principles, a document that affirms the inerrancy and infallibility of the holy word of God. To avoid liberalism and all that comes with it, the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture must be affirmed.
The Reformed tradition has recognized the need to accept the word of God as infallible and inerrant. Both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith affirm the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. According to the 1689, “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.” Infallibility means that Scripture is incapable of error, and inerrancy means that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts. These truths are embedded in the Reformed heritage of confessional Protestantism.
The relationship between scriptural compromise and permitting women to become elders exists because of theological liberalism. Baptist theologian John Piper notes the link between Scriptural compromise and egalitarianism—the removal of sex-based roles within the church and home—stating, “Most of the new egalitarian arguments are rooted outside of the Bible,” and “the inerrancy of Scripture is ultimately at stake.” A proper understanding of how Scripture is interpreted is essential for orthodox teaching, as it is linked to theological liberalism and the eradication of sex-based roles within the church.
The differing hermeneutical strategies ushered in by theological liberalism are a primary distinction between confessional orthodoxy and theological liberalism. German higher critics such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, along with later reader-response theorists like Stanley Fish, demonstrate that when individuals determine a text’s meaning apart from a consistent and robust hermeneutical methodology, the doctrines of scriptural inerrancy and infallibility are undermined, and the effects of theological liberalism are inevitable. These include installing non-binary elders, sanctioning homosexual unions, and even supporting abortion.
However, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic advanced by the Reformers yields a consistent interpretation of pastoral leadership, one that aligns with the broader trajectory of the church’s history. Scripture states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12a). To reject what is clearly elucidated by this passage leaves the door cracked open for liberalism. The permissibility of females occupying the pastorate and the rejection of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture operate under the umbrella of theological liberalism.
The rejection of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic has led to the replacement of Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura. The progressive rejection of inerrancy has left liberal churches affirming female pastors, flying pride flags, and participating in pride rallies.
Now, the liberal churches have non-binary “pastors” preaching to empty buildings. The United Methodist Church has seen a continual decline over the past 50 years, losing over 49% of its members in the United States and recently reporting that only 1.4 million people attend in person weekly. On the other hand, baptisms and church attendance are rising with the SBC. The SBC rejects cultural androgyny and believes that men and women both have immense value to the church and society. The effects of theological liberalism—notably the rejection of gender distinction—are apparently and obviously grim.
To compromise on the teaching of 1 Timothy would not only contravene biblical instruction but also allow the door to remain open for theological liberalism.
Affirming Gender Essentialism Is the Path Forward
In a recent public speaking event, Mohler remarked that the church needs an Augustine-like figure to properly and clearly outline the relationship between the church and the state. Perhaps Mohler himself can fulfill his own request. The church respects the differences in men and women while affirming their equal dignity due to being created in God’s image (Gen 1:27). As the culture navigates the murky water of gender essentialism—the idea that men and women have innate and distinct differences—Mohler and the SBC offer a compelling solution that celebrates men and women through affirming ontological difference and inherent equality in value.
To reserve the office of elder to men is to reaffirm a distinction between men and women that is rooted in both natural and special revelation. The sexes are complementary, not competitors.
Affirming gender essentialism is not solely deduced from Scripture. The body and mind are inseparable; they are both components of the human person. For example, the person composing this sentence is transmitting information from his brain onto the page via his fingers. His mind and body work simultaneously to achieve the intended task. Men and women have both a body and a mind, and are equal in dignity by nature of their being. However, they have differences in bone density, bodily structure, and reproductive organs that are ordained for their benefit and ought to be celebrated.
A quick walk on the campus of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary reveals the contrast between the empty churches of theological liberalism and the fruit of orthodoxy. Many young families, some of which I have the privilege of knowing, walk Southern’s bustling campus and are open to the Lord’s call on their lives. Many young men are eager to preach the gospel, and many young women yearn to be mothers, wives, and helpers in the church. These servants are following God’s created order, collectively leveraging their lives for the preservation of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.
America is in the midst of a cultural crisis on gender. We have the lowest fertility rate and the lowest percentage of marriages in our history. As liberal Christianity continues to work its way through our bloodstream, the question is not if, but when the culture will mirror the emptiness of pews in liberal churches. What if the culture affirmed gender essentialism and celebrated complementarity? Much to Mohler’s delight, American society would begin to cherish men and women for their unique and distinct ontological gifts. Let’s have a culture that embraces men and women for their differences, celebrates life, and lives with the grain of creational ontology, not against it.