Context Video:
Jason Paredes – Response Given to Fielder Church Regarding the SBC Amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (6/19/2023); Fielder Church; Arlington, Tx
Summary of Paredes’ Message
In Paredes’ message to his church, he aims to clarify his position and the position of the church’s elders in relation to recent controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) which included the disfellowshipping of SBC churches who had ordained women to be pastors and/or had women serving as pastors. In response to this controversy, the SBC messengers proposed and adopted an amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) 2000 specifying “the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men…,” whereas previously the statement read “ the office of pastor is limited to men.”
Paredes argues that the term “pastor” is describing a function that can be filled by both men and women not an office like the terms elder or overseer. He affirms a complementarian position in husband/wife relationships and affirms that the office of elder is limited to men. He strongly states that their church does not ordain women to the office of elder/overseer. However, the church does recognize the vocational calling of women and has appointed them in paid staff positions as “pastors.” He qualifies these positions as “not positions of authority.”
To justify this practice, Paredes argues that including Pastor along with Elder and Overseer as offices limited to men is a valid but not necessary interpretation of Scripture. He argues that 1 Peter 5:1-3 is the primary text that links pastor to elder/overseer. In this passage, he rightly points out that “pastor” is a verbal form not a noun like the terms elder and overseer. He concludes that it is a “jump” to go from the verbal form to a title or office that can be described as “Pastor.” In further support of this, he argues persuasively that the list in Ephesians 4:11 is a list of gifts or functions not a list of offices.
He uses the compelling analogy that every quarterback is a football player, but not every football player is a quarterback. Thus, he argues that every Elder is a Pastor, but not every Pastor is an Elder.
He concludes by appealing to the autonomy of the local church as a key teaching that will direct Fielder Church’s response to the SBC if the amendment is officially adopted. While he does not directly say it, he seems to imply that Fielder Church would be likely to break away from the SBC if this amendment is adopted.
My Interaction with Paredes’ Thoughts
1. I want to express my appreciation for Paredes and his ministry. He has a reputation for expositional preaching and has developed a faithful, gospel ministry in the DFW area. He clearly respects the Bible’s authority on a subject that is often either ignored or denied. In my context with many, strong voices dismissing any complementarian position as backwards at best and oppressive and demeaning to women at worst, Paredes’ position is a refreshing! What is more, his humility and attempt to bring about clarity for his church is compelling and a practice from which I hope to learn. That being said, I do have a few points of concerns…
2. He does not state the issue carefully.
a. Paredes seems to say in the introduction that the amendment proposed at the SBC meeting limits the office of pastor to men. However, the office of pastor has been limited to men in the BFM since 2000.
b. When he quotes the BFM, he quotes the 2000 version. The text that they put on screen is the amended text which includes “pastor/elder/overseer.” This is the actual change being debated in the SBC right now.
3. He does not adequately deal with the nature of language.
a. The issue is not resolved by the Greek terms used as Paredes seems to think. One must also consider how the receptor language (English) uses the terms. It has been the near universal practice of English-speaking SBC churches to use the English term, “pastor” to describe the role of elder/overseer. It strikes me as naïve at best to think that calling a paid position “pastor” would not evoke the connotations of authority amongst an English-speaking church. If you have to remove the bulk of the semantic domain from a word in a receptor language, then why use that word at all? Either create a new word and define it, or keep working until you have a term that better fits the receptor language. In this case, an English term is needed which connotes a calling to ministry, a position of service but not authority, and recognition by the church as gifted for ministry. If there were no such term in English, we would be justified in creating one.
b. However, there are actually two parallel terms in English that carry exactly those connotations! The terms “Minister” or “Deacon” (depending on the church’s history with deacons) are widely acknowledged to have biblical basis for both men and women and respect the boundaries imposed by our use of language to describe realities that are above our words.
c. While Paredes says that “pastor” is a function not an office, he is designated as “Pastor Jason” on the message that accompanied the video and even the video itself identifies him as “Pastor Jason Paredes.” If Pastor was merely a function, then it would not make sense to use it as a title. “Care-er Jason Paredes” or “Administrator Jason Paredes” does not work precisely because caring and administrating are not terms associated with a recognizable office. If Paredes was to be consistent in his use of terms, then he should abandon “pastor” and be referred to as “Elder Jason Paredes.”
4. He does not wrestle with key texts that unite pastor to elder/overseer.
a. Acts 20:17, 28
i. In Acts 20:17, Paul summons the elders of the church of Ephesus. In Acts 20:28, Paul refers to the same group as overseers and gives them the specific task “to shepherd the church of God.” Those who are elders/overseers are “to shepherd.” The function of shepherding seems to mark out the role of elder/overseer in some way.
ii. Utilizing Paredes’ analogy here is helpful. It is true that not all football players are quarterbacks. However, if the coach tells a player to receive the snap and then throw the ball, everyone on the field knows that player is the “quarterback.” The function marks out the office. So also, if shepherding/pastoring is the task, the one doing that task is an elder/overseer.
iii. This is why the function of authoritative teaching is restricted to biblically qualified men in 1 Timothy 2:12. If a woman performs the function, it appears as if she is presuming to that office.
b. 1 Peter 5:1-2 in the context of 1 Peter 2:25 and 5:4
i. Paredes argues that shepherding is a function not an office or title in 5:1-2. However, he fails to note that the combination of terms used in 5:1-2 is directly related to the same combination of terms in 2:25 where Jesus is described as the “Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.” Both terms in 2:25 are nouns not verbs and provide the context for Peter’s instructions of spiritual authority. The context of spiritual authority is made explicit by the fact that husband/wife relationships are addressed in the very next verse (3:1). 5:1 picks up the theme of spiritual authority like Christ coupled with suffering like Christ (3:8-4:19) and applies it the elders. The elders are to be like the “archipoimen” Chief Shepherd (5:4).
ii. Thus, it is not as big a “jump” as Paredes suggests to conclude that Pastor, the English term for Shepherd, could be used to describe the one with spiritual authority over the flock.
5. Two cautions are offered in the spirit of friendly encouragement in response to Paredes’ video.
a. First, Paredes’ argument may actually bring about confusion rather than clarity on the subject. It would be better to use a term like “Pastor” in the way it is commonly used and thus not attach it to positions occupied by women. While I do not know the intention or history behind Fielder Church giving the title “pastor” to women, I can imagine that it was done so out of a sincere desire to honor women in legitimate places of leadership. This can be done without confusing and potentially aiding others in rejecting Scripture’s authoritative prescription that men occupy the role of elder/overseer (and pastor in the 21st century Baptist context!).
b. Second, Paredes appeals to the autonomy of the local church as justification for their independence from the authority of the SBC’s decision on this issue. While technically correct (SBC churches are independent), appealing to the autonomy of the local church as a means to ignore the wisdom of the larger SBC family seems more akin to a corporate version of “expressive individualism” than the “clothing with humility” that is supposed to mark the family of faith (1 Peter 5:5). It seems that a better posture would be to make the argument in favor of Fielder’s position. Then, if successful, rejoice that they have persuaded their brothers and sisters. If unsuccessful, then joyfully submit to the wisdom of brothers and sisters in order to preserve the unity of the body. On an issue as simple as the title given to a staff position, it seems that the smaller adjustment is to change the title rather than to demand an entire denomination to change definitions. Threatening to leave the SBC over this issue seems unwise and may even be dishonoring to the Lord.
Think These Things 