Why I Would Have Voted Against the SBC’s “Truth and Unity” Amendment

Posted byBrian DembowczykPosted inChurch, Theology

TLDR: I would have voted against the “Truth and Unity” amendment despite supporting male-only elders because the proposal creates more confusion than clarity and oversimplifies complex issues of titles, functions, and authority. Greater nuance, charity, and humility should precede the 2027 vote.

This past week, the SBC messengers passed Al Mohler’s “Truth and Unity” constitutional amendment by a 75-25 margin. It will come before the messengers at the 2027 annual meeting in Indianapolis, and if it receives at least two-thirds support there, it will become part of the SBC constitution.

As someone who holds a generally complementarian view of gender roles, I nevertheless would have voted against this amendment. My opposition would not have stemmed from a desire to see women serving as elders or senior pastors in SBC churches. Rather, I believe the proposal creates more confusion than clarity and undermines the very unity it claims to advance. Here’s why.

Why This Amendment?

The amendment seeks to clarify that only men can serve as pastors in churches affiliated with the SBC—an affirmation already present in Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000: Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. 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.1

Proponents argue this language is insufficient. The new amendment would more directly require the Credentials Committee to deem churches that employ women titled “pastor” and/or that permit women to preach to the assembled congregation as not being in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC. Such churches would therefore be removed from friendly cooperation, that is they would not be allowed to be part of the SBC.2

Here is the full text of Article III.1 of the SBC constitution, including the proposed amendment (III.1.6):

  1. The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work (i.e., a “cooperating” church as that term is used in the Convention’s governing documents) which:
    • 1 . Has a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith. (By way of example, churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior would be deemed not to be in cooperation with the Convention.)
    • 2. Has formally approved its intention to cooperate with the Southern Baptist Convention. (By way of example, the regular filing of the annual report requested by the Convention would be one indication of such cooperation.)
    • 3. Has made undesignated, financial contribution(s) through the Cooperative Program, and/or through the Convention’s Executive Committee for Convention causes, and/or to any Convention entity during the fiscal year preceding.
    • 4. Does not act in a manner inconsistent with the Convention’s beliefs regarding sexual abuse.
    • 5. Does not act to affirm, approve, or endorse discriminatory behavior on the basis of ethnicity.
    • 6. 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.3

Why Are Some Against This Amendment?

In addition to believing the amendment is unnecessary—given existing mechanisms the Credentials Committee has already used4—opponents argue that neither the amendment nor the underlying issue is as clear as supporters claim. That is my position.

If forced to label myself, I would say I am a complementarian. I believe God created men and women as equals who are, at times, given different roles. The biblical argument that the office of elder/pastor is limited to men (based primarily on 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6) is, to me, the most persuasive. I also believe a husband should lead in the home (though I’m less certain what that looks like in practice). However, complementarianism encompasses far more than these points, which is why I often prefer the term “soft complementarian.” And that’s part of the problem.

Many frame this debate as a strict dichotomy—egalitarianism versus complementarianism—which oversimplifies the issue. In reality, there are numerous complicated issues and various positions that can be held. So it is more of a continuum than two binary poles.

The deeper problem is that many fail to see this complexity. Instead, they make assumptions that place anyone who does not share their exact definitions and conclusions into the opposing camp.

Exploring the Complexity

What follows is not an argument for or against complementarianism, nor a case on who may or may not be a pastor.5 Rather, I offer a series of questions that illustrate why the issue is far more complicated than some claim. And this is why had I been a messenger, I would have voted against the amendment (again, not because I am an egalitarian or desire female elders in the SBC) because it assumes more than it states and creates more confusion than clarity. It fails to deliver the “truth” and “unity” its title promises in a way that all Southern Baptists of good faith can support.

Questions to Consider

  • Are “pastor” and “elder” the same office? Are all elders pastors and all pastors elders? If so, does the Bible support this clearly and strongly enough to deem a church unbiblical for having a female “Women’s Pastor” who exercises no governing authority over the church and does not preach to the corporate gathering?
  • Are the title, office, and function of pastor/elder inseparably fused? Can someone be called “pastor” without holding the office or performing its functions? Can someone hold the title and office but not exercise the functions? Conversely, can someone function as a pastor without the title or office? If these three elements are inseparable, what is the clear scriptural case for that conclusion?
  • What are the specific functions of a pastor/elder? If it is more than one, why does the amendment single out preaching?6 Is preaching the only function that cannot be shared by non-pastors? For example, can a non-pastor visit the sick or help administer the ordinances? if this is the only non-sharable function, why is that and what is the scriptural case?
  • Authority lies at the heart of this discussion. What exactly is the pastor/elder’s authority? Authority to do what, and over whom? What makes this authority unique?
  • Some argue that preaching is inherently an authoritative act reserved for pastors/elders. What exactly is authoritative about it? If preaching is authoritative, how do we justify churches that regularly allow non-elder, non-staff men to preach? Is teaching different? If so, why?
  • If preaching is the definitive function of a pastor/elder, must every pastor preach? How should we view male staff pastors (executive pastors, worship pastors, etc.) who rarely or never preach? If this is the definitive function, how frequently should a pastor preach to fulfill this calling? If a pastor’s job description prioritizes anything above preaching (e.g., missions), how does that reconcile with it as the primary function?
  • Is “pastor” also a spiritual gift beyond the office (see Ephesians 4:11–12)? If not, why is it the only office listed alongside apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers—while the other office (deacon) is omitted?
  • What does the amendment mean by “affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function”? If this means not having a female pastor on staff, why not say that clearly? Would partnering with a church that has a female pastor to do a community mission project be “affirming” or “endorsing” a female in that office? Would allowing a woman to visit shut ins or help administer a baptism be “affirming,” “appointing,” or “endorsing” the function?
  • Must a pastor be married, per the literal reading of 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6? If not, why do we treat that qualification differently from the inference that a pastor must be male because he must have “one wife”?

Some of My Answers

For what it’s worth, here is where I land:

  • Elders, of which a lead pastor should be one, are to be men.
  • Not all pastors on staff are the same, and not all pastors are elders. The lead/senior pastor is of a different class than staff pastors. The SBC would be better to acknowledge this, or it should move toward limiting “pastor” being used in this sense as part of this discussion.
  • The authority of a pastor/elder primarily concerns determining the “official” doctrine of a local church and exercising church discipline.
  • Preaching is not an inherently authoritative act. Authority rests in the Word of God, not the preacher.
  • The title, office, and function of “pastor” are not inseparably fused. While I would not do it myself, titling a non-elder staff member “pastor” may not be unfaithful to Scripture. Many see this title as one meaning “shepherd,” not “elder.”
  • Preaching is one function of a pastor/elder, but shepherding—caring for the flock—is primary.
  • If this amendment passes, the SBC should apply equal scrutiny to churches with male pastors who are not fulfilling the biblical office and functions.
  • If the SBC wants to codify that no woman may have the title of pastor or preach, that can be stated in a much clearer way. Rather, if it desires a more comprehensive position on women in leadership, it should expand the discussion to include many (or perhaps all) of the questions above.

Conclusion

In the end, I recognize that these positions must be held with charity, grace, and humility. Two believers can share a common commitment to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture and reach different positions. Indeed, Southern Baptists should be able to disagree on the application of certain texts and the wisdom of specific constitutional measures without immediately questioning one another’s orthodoxy. My hope is that the SBC continues to wrestle honestly with these questions over the next twelve months and vote next June accordingly for the good of the church and the glory of Christ.

  1. https://bfm.sbc.net/bfm2000/ ↩︎
  2. Some have claimed this violates the Baptist principle of church autonomy. Technically, it does not. The SBC cannot dictate a church’s doctrine or practice, but it does have the right to determine which churches it considers aligned with its identity and mission. A church may continue calling a woman “pastor” or allowing women to preach; it simply would not remain part of the Southern Baptist Convention. ↩︎
  3. https://www.sbc.net/about/what-we-do/legal-documentation/constitution/ ↩︎
  4. Churches have recently been declared not in friendly cooperation for having women on staff with the title “pastor.” ↩︎
  5. I should also note that I am not an expert on this matter. I have studied it and thought about it quite a bit, but I am not a scholar on this subject. ↩︎
  6. “Specifically” does not isolate preaching as the only function, but rather points to that one above any and all others. ↩︎

Leave a comment