Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says he will propose what he is calling the “Truth and Unity Amendment” to the SBC Constitution during the annual meeting in Orlando in June.
Mohler says he will move “that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in June 2026 amend the Constitution of the SBC to add an enumerated 6th item, under Article 3, Paragraph 1, defining composition. This new language would make clear that a cooperating Southern Baptist church:
‘6. Does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, such as preaching to the assembled congregation.’”
Check out related article: Opinion: Pondering how to understand the coming ‘truth and unity’ SBC amendment
Kentucky Today Editor Lawrence Smith spoke with Mohler about his proposal. Some questions and answers have been slightly edited for brevity and clarity.
First — a two-part question. Why this amendment and why now?
The need for the amendment has been made very clear by recent Southern Baptist Convention meetings where the sessions have taken a great deal of time dealing with these issues, and I think there was a consensus last year.
Now, remember that the similar kind of amendment was overwhelmingly approved by messengers twice in a row. It just wasn’t enough in that second vote to reach the by-law changing super majority, and even after the convention last year, subsequent developments have underscored the fact that something like this is necessary.
I’ve had so many pastors come to me, including some who did not support the Law Amendment, but now have come back and said, “You know, subsequent developments are such that we just need this. The SBC should not be spending so much time every year dealing with this issue.
Let me just remind Southern Baptists that a generation ago Southern Baptists took similar action on the LGBTQ issue, and since then it has not been an issue on the floor of the convention. So, for 30 years, we’ve been able to deal with other issues and move forward together, and it’s exactly what we need on the question of pastors.
The amendment states that a cooperating SBC church “does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, such as preaching to the assembled congregation.” The amendment uses the words “office” and “function.” Why do you think it was necessary to include both those words?
It’s a great question, and by the way, those two words come from our Baptist confessional heritage. So, in other words, I’ve been teaching this for decades — the Baptist belief that the office and the function are together in one person.
But we do speak of office and a function, and the reason why we now have to put function in explicitly is because of a development that has taken place, most importantly in Texas. You’ve had a Texas church just say, “Well, okay, then we won’t call pastors ‘pastors.’ We’ll call them shepherds.” That’s just the same word, basically. They say, “We’re just getting around that. If you can’t have woman pastor, good. We’ll just call everybody a shepherd. So, we have women shepherds and male shepherds.”
Well, that just fails at the issue of function. In other words, you change the name in order to ignore the function. And this is why the SBTC, the Southern Baptist Convention in Texas, is also adopting, or having presented to it, this very language. So, the very language about, “such as a woman preaching to the assembled congregation” — that is the very language that the Texas Convention now sees absolutely necessary because of a development in a church there. By the way, I’m very thankful for this Texas response. I think this is very healthy, and it’s a reminder to the SBC. This is an issue for the SBC as well.
That’s where I wanted to go next. The language, “such as preaching to the assembled congregation,” why was that inserted? Why is that important?
It is because that’s exactly what’s germane in the situation in Texas. It is that they have women who are preaching. They just change the word of pastor to shepherd, and so it is the function that is the issue. If a woman is preaching to the assembled congregation, we believe that that’s biblically wrong, and I think, by the way, not only are the vast majority of Southern Baptists in agreement on that — I think it’s a vast, vast, vast majority of Southern Baptists.
This just makes the issue clear. It’s also for the twin goals of efficiency and faithfulness. Ultimately, the big issue is faithfulness, but efficiency is also important. The SBC has spent so much time over the last several years on this issue. Let me just point out, we have not spent similar time on issues related to the LGBTQ question because we had a constitutional measure a generation ago that solved the problem. That’s what we need in this case as well.
We’ve gotten a number of questions regarding the “function” part of this. For example, some are concerned that language could be applied to a female children’s minister or female youth minister. How do you respond to that?
This language was worked out carefully. This isn’t accidental language. I think you know me; I pay a lot of attention to words. There’s precedent here for the use of the words just as they are.
When it says, “a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor such as preaching to the assembled congregation,” that means that the SBC will have said that one thing — that one thing — is a matter of denominational consensus. Now that means that there are other things that are not a matter of denominational consensus.
Take this amendment, proposed amendment, off the table. Let’s just deal with the SBC as it stands today. With our Baptist Faith and Message, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. Let’s just assume that’s all we have. You could have a challenge to a woman serving as a children’s minister or anything, just on the basis of that. This doesn’t enlarge that and, I’ll just tell you, I don’t think Southern Baptists are intending to spend any time debating on a lot of these issues. That is not what has reached the floor of the SBC.
That hasn’t been an ongoing issue of debate. There are people who would come up with all kinds of issues, but there is no momentum for any of those issues in the SBC.
What about, for example, a woman worship leader?
It says, “such as preaching to the assembled congregation.” That would be the issue definitively identified in consensus in the SBC.
What about a church that is elder led, all male, but with a female children’s minister, for example, who has the title “children’s pastor?” Or the female youth minister, the “youth pastor?” Would you speak to that?
Look, I think the SBC has been as clear as possible in saying that is not an advisable use of the word “pastor.” And so, take my proposed amendment language off the table. The fact is that, given just the Baptist Faith and Message, it’s the same thing. Someone could bring a charge against that church in terms of seating of those messengers right now, and the Baptist Faith and Message, I think, is very clear about this.
I think it would be an advisement to churches that the word “pastor” should be assigned to men as qualified by Scripture. This doesn’t give the SBC authority it doesn’t now have. It possesses that authority right now.
So, this amendment would not change that at all?
The SBC has the authority. If the consensus of messengers is not to seat messengers from a church on the basis of any kind of confessional issue, the convention has that authority right now. It has that power right now. This just focuses this issue for the sake of efficiency of the SBC.
Let me put it another way. I think the grave danger here, and we see this in the mainline Protestant denominations, they said, “Oh, we’re only going to do this. No, we’re only going to do that.” But they broke from biblical authority. They began ordaining women to the pastorate, and that meant literally to the pastorate. It meant they’re preaching to the assembled congregation.
The same hermeneutic that was used to distort Scripture in that case was the precedent for the distorted hermeneutic when it comes to normalizing LGBTQ issues. So, by no coincidence, the same churches have generally moved in that direction. This is intended to make certain that Southern Baptists just don’t move in that direction and, frankly, don’t have to consider these issues in a divisive, expensive, emotionally laden way, every year. We, the SBC, will just handle these things naturally the same way as other issues.
You mentioned actions taken in the past by the SBC messengers to remove churches with female pastors. What about those who look at that and ask, “Why do we need this at all?”
Is that what we want to do every year with a list of those churches? Is that how we want to spend our time?
That would point out, in any responsible polity, in any responsible organization, that you need to take definitive action for the sake of efficiency and faithfulness, so that you don’t have to keep coming back to this.
We imposed an awful lot of responsibility on a Credentials Committee, and by the way, that’s not a full-time paid committee. That’s a committee of Southern Baptists, and we have put on them an unbearable load on these questions. We need to help them out a great deal. I think that’s what this constitutional amendment would do.
We’re tracking together on this, because that’s my next question. The Credentials Committee has a thankless job. Do you think passing this amendment will make that job easier or harder?
I think the entire efficiency argument is to make it easier, such that this would make very clear that if there is a church in violation of this constitutional provision, then that would just settle the issue. We put far too much on the Credentials Committee, and we have made it worse. We increased their responsibility and their workload in recent years by having them take on even more responsibility. They need help, and I think the SBC needs help, and the SBC doesn’t need to act like we’re not settled on this issue. I think we are really settled on this issue.
Are you concerned that no matter which way this vote goes, there are a number of churches that will leave the SBC?
You know, I’ve heard this for years. The SBC has been threatened one way or another this way, and there have been churches that have left. Frankly, with the conservative resurgence, there were a lot of churches that left, and I think we can look at each other now and say, “You know, that was necessary for the SBC’s health, and your church has the right to go in whatever direction it wants.”
I think it’s exaggerated to speak either way about this kind of measure, because if it’s a convictional issue, then Southern Baptists had better answer with full conviction, and I think future generations will appreciate Southern Baptists for taking a clear convictional stand now.
But I want to be really clear, the SBC has the power and the mechanism and the responsibility and stewardship to deal with these issues with or without a constitutional statement. We have a confessional statement that’s very clear.
I mentioned the church in Texas that just changed the name from pastor to shepherd and said, “Okay, take that.” Well, you know we have new issues we didn’t even know a year ago we were going to face. I just don’t think Southern Baptists are healthy if we just say, “Well, let’s find out what happens next year. Let’s come back and debate these things again next year.” I can just tell you that’s not a sign of health.
As you know, there are thousands of women serving faithfully in churches. They’re not pastors, don’t want to be. But they may be concerned that this debate communicates that they’re not valued. Would you speak to them?
In marriage there’s a distinction between the husband and the wife. There’s not a greater and a lesser. There are different responsibilities given to the man and to the woman. That is biblically clear, and it is not an insult to women. It is rather, I think, in the Christian worldview, a way of exalting both men and women who are faithful before God.
The SBC would not exist if you take faithful women out of the equation. Our local churches would not be at all healthy and vibrant in their ministry if you take out the faithful women.
Southern Seminary, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in a more liberal day enrolled a good many women in the program. Now, with clearly conservative convictions in place for more than 30 years — and that means biblical complementarianism — with that in place, we have not only more women in our program, but a greater percentage of the student body is women than ever before.
In other words, we think there is a way — there has to be in biblical wisdom — to exalt the role of women in full respect and also understand that the limitation of the office of pastor to men. It’s not our idea, and it’s not a way of exalting men. It’s because of the Lord’s own mandate in Scripture, and it’s for His glory. So, you know what, it turns out that the biblically ordered family is the healthy family, which is the happy family. It turns out that the biblically ordered church is the healthy church, and the happy church. I don’t think that’s an accident.
What are your final thoughts, your final words to Kentucky Baptists who are considering this amendment coming up in Orlando.
I think in every generation there are those moments in which you have the opportunity to maximize unity and faithfulness and the truth. I think this is one of those moments. I hope Southern Baptists will enthusiastically support this proposal, and that we can move forward in unity.
I’m committed to the SBC. Southern Baptists know that. But I’m putting myself on the line here simply because I believe in this moment, we face just such a stewardship. I’m hoping and praying that Southern Baptists will rise to the stewardship and affirm this amendment, and we can move forward in truth and unity together.
EDITOR’S NOTE — This story was written by Lawrence Smith and originally published by Kentucky Today.
