What is the current issue?

Our Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has voted to make a change to our SBC Constitution under Article III stating that “The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the convention… which affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by scripture.”

For more information on how the SBC lays out the case for this amendment, click this link:  https://sbcamendment.org/

To change the constitution, it must be passed at two annual SBC conventions. It passed once in 2023 and will be voted on for the second time at the upcoming 2024 convention on June 10-12 in Indianapolis. It takes a two-thirds majority vote to pass. This amendment is widely expected to pass.

For a very helpful article that summarizes this issue, along with pros and cons and links to various perspectives, click this link: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/faqs-southern-baptists-women-ministry/

As you know, our Preschool and Children’s Pastor is female. If this amendment passes, the SBC could deem our church to not be in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC and no longer be considered an SBC church. However, the SBC has also created a “Cooperation Group” to help the SBC be more unified. They are bringing recommendations to the convention that states that they feel the constitutional amendment is not necessary and the “sole authority” to remove churches for not being in friendly cooperation should lie only with the annual convention in session, not any other committee. For more information, click this link:  https://baptistnews.com/article/sbc-cooperation-group-offers-four-recommendations-says-constitution-is-clear-enough/

What if we just changed the job title to “Preschool and Children’s Minister” or “Director”?  Would that solve the problem?

Perhaps.My guess is that for most in the SBC circles, the key issue is using the word “pastor” for anyone who is currently on staff in an SBC church and who is not a Senior Pastor, especially if that person is a female. So if we and other churches simply removed the word “pastor” and went with “minister” or “director”, then we would most likely not be “targeted” (my word) for “not being in friendly cooperation” with the SBC. I say this because of information posted about this on the SBC website about the SBC Amendment. Under the FAQ section, Q. 23 says “Can’t a female pastor just change her title to “minister to sidestep this amendment?” click this link:  https://sbcamendment.org/home-2/frequently-asked-questions/

And if you wonder: “Would the SBC really go through all the churches and seek out those with the word “pastor” in their title and determine if they are in “friendly cooperation” or not, click this link: https://americanreformer.org/2023/06/how-many-female-pastors-are-in-the-sbc/ and this link:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/da1iemimaz4vxl3/Female%20Pastors%20in%20the%20SBC%20-%20Google%20Docs.pdf?e=1&dl=0.

I would also say that churches very similar to ours are already facing these kinds of questions. For citation, click this link: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/may/12/first-baptist-church-of-alexandria-va-faces-expuls/

A big part of the problem with this (at least to me) is that if this change is made official, and we decide to change anyone’s title to “minister” or “director,” how do we know that another amendment won’t include “minister” next?  Or that it really isn’t even the title, but what the position DOES, and who determines whether that position is functioning as a “pastor/elder/overseer”, but without the title?  It puts the SBC in the position to be the judge and enforcer when for the vast majority of our history, the SBC has been a collective of churches seeking to send missionaries and train ministers in our seminaries.

What are we at Mauldin First Baptist? Are we “egalitarian” or “complementarian”?

If you aren’t familiar with these words, you need to know what they mean because these words often come up when discussing this current issue.  Simply put, “egalitarian” means that both men and women can serve in any office or role in the church, without restrictions or limitations. Women can be Senior Pastors, Elders, or anything. While this is an oversimplification, most Christians who are egalitarian see the New Testament (NT) passages referring to elder/senior leaders being men as simply a reflection of the culture at that time and not relevant in today’s modern world.

“Complementarians” however, believe that while men and women are equal in value and worth in the sight of God and in the work of the church, that men are to be the elder/senior leaders of the church and that these “offices” of the church are not open to women, regardless of time or culture.

For a basic review of these terms, click this link: https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-are-complementarianism-and-egalitarianism-what-s-the-difference.html

Most SBC churches are complementarian, in that the Senior Pastor/Lead Elder must be male. There really appears to be no serious debate among the SBC on this issue. I agree and I believe the best teaching and application of the scriptures lead us to see that God’s design for the church and for the family is for male leadership. So, between the two words, I would say that I am a complementarian. I would also say that I believe this is where the majority of our church would be, although I must confess we haven’t taught on this subject in detail since I became pastor in 2008. I was an Associate Pastor from 2000-2007 and I don’t think we taught on this subject in detail during that time either (at least I don’t recall).  This is something as the Senior Pastor that I need to address (see My Conclusions at the end).

However, I don’t see myself as having a “hardline” complementarianism view and application as some others do, especially as it relates to this current SBC amendment issue. Yes, I believe the office of Senior Pastor in churches should be limited to men, but I don’t think it undermines the NT teaching for women to serve in roles other than Senior Pastor, as we have in our church. I realize some object for women to have “pastor” in their title on church staff because they believe the word “pastor” is equal to “elder” and “overseer” in the NT (more on this below in “What do the scriptures actually say regarding this issue?) and therefore cannot possibly be allowed.

But some have taken a position called “soft complementarianism”. This is somewhat of a new term to me, but in my recent reading, I feel this currently best defines my viewpoint on this matter. And I believe it represents the majority viewpoint of Mauldin First Baptist. Basically, it means that women can have leadership roles in the church, provided that their authority is still under the authority of a male in a senior leader/elder type role.  For a general explanation, click this link:  https://www.wednesdayintheword.com/softcomplementarian/

Another viewpoint on this I found helpful was from Eric Geiger. He shows how, in our current climate, some strongly advocate for either ONLY an egalitarian viewpoint or ONLY a complementarian viewpoint and that there is no in-between. He discusses while it is very likely that soft complementarians will probably still be looked down upon by both egalitarians and hard (my word) complementarians, that a third viewpoint/application here is reasonable and biblical. Click this link:  https://ericgeiger.com/2023/06/20/soft-complementarians-holding-to-headship-and-the-gifting-of-women/

For our church, I think it means that we need to teach on this more, discuss this, pray about it together, and see where the Lord leads us. But at the moment, I would say that MFBC practices the “soft complementarian” view.

What do the scriptures actually say about this issue?  And how are we to apply them?

Fortunately, the passages in the NT that refer to elders, overseers, bishops, pastors, etc. have been studied in great detail by a wide variety of the best scholars in the world for hundreds of years. And thanks to technology, we have easy access to their research and conclusions.  However, even with all this, there is still considerable debate on exactly what the scriptures actually say and how they are to be applied.

Let’s start with the most basic information. Most NT scholars agree that there are basically two “offices” in the local church: elder and deacon. I will not get into deacon specifics in this study. But the most common Greek word used for elders is “presbyters,” used 72 times in the NT. Another word often cited in tandem with elder is the Greek word “episkopos,” often translated as “bishop” or “overseer,” used 7 times in the NT. Passages such as Acts 20:17-28 and Titus 1:5-7 give instructions to those who hold this church office and seem to use the words “presbyteros” and “episkopos” interchangeably. These are the primary words used to describe this office and they seem to refer to the same thing. I would state that again, on the free interchange of “episkopos” and “presbyteros,” there is no serious debate.

But what about the word “pastor”? Where it is used in the NT, should it be seen as interchangeable with “presbyteros” and “episkopos”? There is debate on this translation and use. I found the following two article links below helpful.  If you don’t want to read the articles, I’ll try to give what I think is a summary of their positions.

Denny Burk is a Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He is, in my view, the “go-to” biblical scholar for our current SBC leadership. He writes that yes, the word “pastor” (“poimen” in Greek) is clearly synonymous with “presbyteros” and “episkopos,”, and thereby bound to all the conditions and stipulations set forth in the NT. One of his main arguments, and many other scholars would agree, is that in passages like Acts 20:28 and I Peter 5:1-2, elders are told to “pastor” their flocks (usually translated as “shepherd” their flocks).

For more details from Denny Burk’s position, click this link:  https://www.9marks.org/article/can-women-be-pastors-but-not-elders/

But keep in mind that the Greek word used in Acts 20 and I Peter 5 and in other passages is the VERB form of the noun “poimen,” which is “poimaino.” This verb form is used 11 times, 7 times translated as “feed” and 4 times translated as “rule”.  But the NOUN form of pastor, “poimen,” is only used once in the NT, in Ephesians 4:11-12 – “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up…”

Some would argue that if we are going by the actual Greek in the NT, the “office” of pastor is not really an office at all, but rather a gift of the Holy Spirit. And since in Ephesians 4:11 pastors are paired with teachers (“didaskolos” in Greek), we should read passages like Romans 12:6-7 and I Corinthians 12:28 which seems to reference “pastor” as to be speaking more to giftedness for the benefit of the church, rather than a specific office held with a specific title. Also, since it is only used as the noun “poimen” one time (in Ephesians 4:11), it is never paired with “presbyteros” or “episkopos,” as a noun. So if the scriptures do not specifically list “pastor” as an office, then why should there be a problem with using the word to describe what our leaders do?

This view is articulated by Sam Storms, which Denny Burk cites (with appropriate respect and humility).  To read Sam Storms’ position, click this link:  https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-god-blog/post/a-complementarian-case-for-women-as-pastors

I think both positions represent detailed and fair exegesis of the scriptures relating to this matter. And they arrive at different conclusions regarding the application of these passages in today’s church.  Like Denny Burk, Sam Storms also shares his perspective with humility. He disagrees with what some might call the “majority opinion,” which I think would say that we should treat the word “pastor” overall as being equal to elder/bishop/overseer. But he does so with the right spirit (in my opinion). And Sam Storms states clearly that he is not an egalitarian, he is a complementarian.

What does Pastor Mike Winger say about all this?

Your first question might be “Who is Mike Winger?” and “Why should I care about what he thinks?” Mike Winger has become a major influential online Bible teacher in the last 10 years. His teaching videos often exceed 500,000 views. Does this mean he’s always right? Of course not. Mike Winger ALWAYS presents his teachings in a humble way, inviting those who would disagree to engage him in dialogue to show him his errors. He even has videos that start with “I was wrong about ….”  For his website, click this link:  https://biblethinker.org/ but most people go straight to his Youtube page, at this link:  https://www.youtube.com/@MikeWinger/videos

With close to 750,000 subscribers, it’s clear Mike Winger is striking a chord. And it’s easy to see why. His research is always well-grounded in scripture and he does a HUGE amount of research, bringing in details from all kinds of viewpoints, even the ones he disagrees with, and lays out his interpretations and how he arrives at his conclusions. And while Mike Winger has a few “short” video segments, many of them are several hours long on just one subject! For example, in his teaching on head coverings for women (see I Corinthians 11), the entire unit is nearly 7 hours!  And yes, I watched it all!

So, as you can imagine, Mike Winger has a series on “Women in Ministry.”  To view, click this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ZQC5g977k&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC

That link is “only” a little over 4 hours.  And yes, I watched it all too. But again, just because Mike Winger is popular, cites scripture and is long-winded, does that mean his views are always right?  No. But he always puts together a very well-grounded position based on the scriptures that at the very least warrants serious consideration (in my opinion).

The good thing about Mike’s videos is that if you can’t just sit or listen for several hours, the videos are easily segmented into sections that you can just jump right to. But you’ll find yourself WANTING to hear the background and this is a good thing.

So where does Mike Winger come down on all this?  In one of his videos, Mike Winger describes himself as a “soft complementarian”.  For that video, as well as some of the text you can just read, see here:  https://biblethinker.org/why-we-cant-think-biblically-about-it-women-in-ministry-part-1/

In Mike’s main Women in Ministry video, click this link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9ZQC5g977k&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC

Feel free to watch the whole thing, but for me, here are some important parts and my personal summary of what he is saying.

  • At the 2:40:03 mark, Mike Winger DOES agree that having the word “pastor” in the title of say, Children’s Pastor, that this is “unhelpful”and he would not recommend using it in the title of what we might call “associate staff positions” (youth, children, worship, etc.), but a female DOING the work we typically associate with a Children’s Pastor (or “Minister/”Director”) is fine. He also references the “slippery slope” concern of this possibly leading to full egalitarianism.
  • He says his “opinion” at about the 2:41:06 mark would be that it would be BEST for churches to actually use the word Elder for titles and Deacons for other roles.  But he knows others won’t follow that. He also says that “to him,” pastor and elder mean the same thing (2:43:00).
  • At the 3:30:08 mark, he begins to address the question about females leading children and student ministries. Does this constitute “leading or having authority over men?” He basically concludes that the “best” practice would be to let females lead all genders “until they reach the age of manhood”, however you define that in your church.
  • At the 4:09 mark, he begins his conclusions.

Another helpful video from Mike Winger that relates to this current issue is his teaching on women and head coverings in I Corinthians 11.  For that video, click this link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keXayp7JXf4&t=24308s

You might see the title and think this is already a really archaic viewpoint (“who could even think of suggesting women should wear head coverings today?”), but I would encourage you to listen to his summary thoughts beginning at 6:36:00 – 6:45:00. He talks about how yes, male headship is grounded in scripture and it’s transcultural, but its APPLICATION, as in how churches practice it, can vary, even based on the culture. And for churches that may practice it differently, we shouldn’t “demonize them” (6:44:50) and that things like this are “secondary issues” (6:36:00), and we shouldn’t “disfellowship over these issues” (6:34:50). I also like how he states beginning in 6:43:22 that the main idea is that our practices should reflect male headship. I believe at MFBC, our staff structure DOES reflect this and that a woman (in our case, our Preschool and Children’s Pastor) does not have authority above the Senior Elder (Senior Pastor) and does not “teach” the congregation, as in teaching the scriptures formally during Sunday worship. Again, I think Mike Winger would discourage using the word “pastor” in the title of the Children’s Pastor (whether the person is female OR male) if that person is not serving as an elder. But at the same time, it is a “secondary issue,” not worthy of “disfellowship”.

So what does all this mean?

My view is that when it comes to the specific application of using the word “pastor” in the title for a woman who leads a specific ministry (other than that of “Senior Pastor”, that the “rightness” or “wrongness” of it is a disputable matter. I use the phrase “disputable matter” deliberately to reference Romans 14:1, which says, ” Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.”  Now, I’m sure the tendency would be to view the party that disagrees with us as the one who has “weak” faith, but the focus of the entire chapter of Romans 14 is for the church to work hard to not let “disputable matters” divide us (in my opinion). I believe our well-meaning SBC leaders are fearful that accepting women in just about any recognized leadership role that has “teaching” and “authority” (probably the two main consistent qualifiers for what elders are supposed to do in the NT, again, in my opinion) responsibilities will lead to slipping into egalitarianism, which will eventually lead to accepting same-sex marriage and homosexuality. For references to this concern, click this link:  https://sbcamendment.org/home-2/why-now/

And I agree, this is certainly possible. I don’t just chalk it up to “paranoia.” There are examples of other Christian denominations who have embraced egalitarianism and later accepted same-sex marriage and homosexuality. For citation, here is a quote from the article link above…

“The American Baptist Churches USA allowed female pastors in 1985 and then homosexual pastors in 1999. The Episcopal Church USA went from having female pastors in 1976 to homosexual pastors in 1996. For the ELCA, it was 1988 to 2009. For the PCUSA, it was 1956 to 2011. And after the United Methodists allowed female pastors in 1956, they are now hemorrhaging over homosexual ordination, and it’s the conservatives who are leaving.”

Note the last reference regarding the UMC change spans about 70 years, so I don’t know if that one really “proves” the theory. But I get the point. I don’t worry about this in our context here at MFBC because we use the phrase “Senior Pastor” for what I think the scriptures would call the “lead elder” role, and when we use other phrases like “Worship Pastor” and “Preschool and Children’s Pastor”, it shows that their authority is limited to certain areas, and not above that of the Senior Pastor, regardless of male or female. But I will readily confess that this needs to be clarified and taught more consistently.

Our SBC leaders are concerned about what I think they would call a theological “slippery slope.” Again, I will cite one of the references they list:  https://christoverall.com/article/concise/is-the-slippery-slope-actually-slippery-egalitarianism-and-the-open-and-affirming-position/

I would state that where we are is NOT what they are saying, as in we are “egalitarian,” accepting of women in any and all roles, including Senior Pastor.

And in their zeal to aggressively squash any possible future egalitarian fissures, the SBC is proposing what I feel is an equally dangerous “slippery slope” in denominational polity. By carving this amendment into the stone of our SBC Constitution (and not in our Baptist Faith and Message), the clear message being sent here is that there is to be no dissent or question or deviation from this decree. Because those that differ will be deemed “not in friendly cooperation.” I feel this is far too heavy handed and sets a dangerous precedent for our SBC leaders to begin “policing” SBC churches. It reminds me of how the NT era Pharisees created the “Mishah,” a set of oral traditions given by the religious leaders to be a “law around the law,” with the intent to “guide” the faithful in the practical application of the “Torah,” the actual first 5 books of the books of the Bible. For a general review/reminder about the Mishnah, click this link:  https://www.gotquestions.org/Mishnah-midrash.html

The problem was that this “guide” soon became “law” and was enforced by the religious leaders upon the people and used to punish and manipulate the people, with the fear of being “put out of the synagogue” if they didn’t obey the Mishnah. Note that they were not breaking the “law” (scripture), but the laws around the law (guides). I really don’t believe this is the intent of our current SBC Leadership. At least I hope.
Several other prominent SBC leaders seem to have a similar concern.  See links below:

I think the 4 pastors cited above come to the same conclusion—no, women should not be senior pastors. And many would concede that using “pastor” in the titles of non-senior pastors might be “confusing,” “ill-conceived,” and even “sloppy,” but most also used descriptive terms such as “innocent,” and “without intent.”  And all agree that while we should teach that men should be senior pastors, this METHOD that is being applied to approach this issue is the wrong method with potentially devastating implications.

Back in the year 2000, when the Baptist Faith and Message was changed to state that “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture, Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, and a member of the committee who made the change said, “churches would not be forced to comply with it as a test of fellowship in the SBC.”  Now, 24 years later, it’s being written into the SBC Constitution as a test of fellowship.  For another view sharing this citation and concern, click this link:  https://sbcvoices.com/how-to-destroy-the-sbc/

Wade, what are you going to do at the SBC convention?

As usual, I will be attending the SBC Convention in Indianapolis June 10-12th and will attend some breakout sessions. In recent times, I’ve been asked to moderate group/table discussions since I am often the “longest tenured pastor at the table.” Not sure how that happened!  🙂

I will attend the main sessions where the amendment and other business will be brought. At this time, my plan is to vote “no” for this amendment, hoping that at a minimum this vote will be tabled until further discussions can take place, and perhaps others will see that we still have the structure in place to deal with churches that are “not in friendly cooperation,”, without this aggressive (in my opinion) amendment. But I can’t say I am optimistic. In a convention where some still speak of liberal challenges that were present 40 years ago like they happened yesterday, I think many are, and I’ll use this word deliberately, “afraid,” that NOT passing this endorses liberalism. I strongly disagree. But it may be too little too late given the head of steam this issue seems to have behind it.

If I do have the opportunity to speak against this amendment, I will. I will do my best to advocate that churches like ours who may have a different application of how we practice complementarianism that WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY!  We are not closet liberals trying to undermine the scriptures or God’s design of male headship. Another point I would emphasize is that THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM! This could literally lead to more than 1,000 churches leaving the convention, especially many of our African American churches. For citation for this concern, click this link:  https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/july/black-churches-concerned-about-expulsion-from-southern-bapt.html

We CAN find a way to address the concern of unchecked egalitarianism while still preserving fellowship. And if we can’t, it should be like a divorce, where we know it is not God’s will and it is only because we exhausted every other possible alternative.

I will also attend my favorite part of every convention—the commissioning of our newest missionaries. These people are literally laying down THEIR lives to serve where God has called them and are taking the gospel to places most of us have never heard of for the chance for new people groups to learn about the love of Jesus.

This remains far and away THE thing that I am most proud of as a member of the SBC—our commitment to take the good news of Jesus to the world.  It is our Great Commission and it is our clear mandate. And we should strive vigorously to stay focused on this main task. As it says in Romans 14:19-20 – “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of ________.”  Now, in the scripture, the word that goes in the blank is “food,” referencing Paul’s often discussed 1st century church battle— eating food sacrificed to idols. Dare I say we could put the word “titles” in that blank here in the 21st century?

Please understand, I feel that I really do understand the theological danger of how we could use Romans 14:1 and put literally anything under the heading of “disputable matters.” But Romans 14, as well as several other teachings in Paul’s letters to churches, continue to warn us not only of heresy, but also the dangers of divisions. At the end of the day, we have to ask—is it really worth it?

One more thing. Who will I vote for regarding the SBC President?  We have six candidates.  For a list, click this here:  https://mbcpathway.com/2024/04/25/six-sbc-presidential-nominations-already-announced-ahead-of-2024-annual-meeting/

While I still have some studying to do, my plan at this time is to vote for Bruce Frank. Bruce Frank is lead pastor of Biltmore Church in western North Carolina and also recently chaired the SBC Sexual Abuse Task Force. He has spoken out against the Law Amendment. I referenced his article earlier, but here it is again: https://www.brnow.org/opinions/voices-opinion/first-person-the-law-amendment-is-understandable-but-unnecessary-unclear-and-potentially-the-unraveling-of-the-sbc/

While all six candidates could be defined as “conservative,” I am concerned that some of them may be linked with the ever-growing Christian Nationalist movement within the SBC. From the articles I’ve read, Bruce Frank does not seem to run in those circles.  It seems Jared Moore is the candidate of choice for those who support Christian Nationalism. I will not be voting for him.

What are we going to do if this amendment passes?

Whether it passes or not, we will be discussing this among our church staff and church council, along with our deacons. We will study the scriptures together. We will pray together. We will seek God’s will in how we move forward. I do not WANT to leave the SBC. My preference would be for us to work things out and find a way to continue as an SBC partner. Some might say that we could join another group or denomination. But many of the denominational splinter groups from the SBC have moved too far to the left (in my opinion) and are indeed traveling down that “slippery slope” the SBC is so worried about. Will we change our titles?  I’m open to discussing this with our leaders, but at this point, I doubt it. It seems “dishonest” quite frankly and I still don’t see that we are in some kind of egregious error that is harmful to the gospel. I am always one who will look for a way to avoid conflict, but we’ll just have to see where things go.

My Conclusions

I believe I understand the “problem” some in our SBC have with using the word “pastor” in the title for staff positions that are not the Senior Pastor, especially if that person is a female.

I also believe that the majority of SBC leaders see the word “pastor” as ONLY referring to the Senior Pastor.  Furthermore, the majority of SBC leaders also see the word “pastor” as equal to and interchangeable with the more common words “presbyteros” and “episkopos,” where the clear teaching is that the office of what we would call the Senior Pastor would be limited to men.

While I agree that this is the majority opinion, I do not believe it is “ironclad” that the word “pastor” (“poimen”) ONLY refers to the office of Senior Pastor rather this can be seen as a “disputable matter” (see Romans 14:1) and does not warrant the ultimatum of being deemed “not in friendly cooperation.”

I believe there can and should be a place within the SBC for the “soft complementarian” position which limits the office of Senior Pastor to men, but is flexible on the role of women in other leadership positions, provided that she is not tasked with the primary teaching responsibilities to the entire church and that her authority is under the direction of a male Senior Pastor.

I believe specific and targeted teaching on this issue and the scriptures related to this area is clearly needed and long overdue. I will discuss with our leadership the best and earliest platforms to make this happen.

I believe that regardless of what happens at the 2024 SBC Convention in June, the church leaders will pray about this, seek the Lord’s will, and discuss what actions will be taken.

Thank you for taking the time to read through all this. Please continue to pray. If you have suggestions, questions, concerns, or different viewpoints, please feel free to share them with me.

Respectfully and prayerfully submitted,

Wade Leonard
Senior Pastor
Mauldin First Baptist Church