I know this is not a quiet topic.
Anytime an association of churches discusses the office of pastor, the role of women in the church, and the boundaries of cooperation, people lean forward. Some do so with gratitude. Others with concern. Some with suspicion. I understand all those feelings.
But I want to say this plainly as an Executive Director of EveryEthne: I am thankful for the Southern Baptist Convention’s approval of the Truth and Unity Amendment.
I’m not thankful because I enjoy controversy. I don’t. In fact, I like it less and less as I get older. I’m not thankful because I think women are less gifted, less courageous, less intelligent, or less necessary to the mission of God. That could not be further from the truth of what I believe the Bible teaches.
I am thankful because truth matters. Unity matters. And the order Christ gives to His church matters.
The Truth and Unity Amendment, brought by Dr. Albert Mohler, seeks to clarify that a cooperating Southern Baptist church “does not affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of pastor/elder/overseer, such as preaching to the assembled congregation.”
That is not a small statement, but it is not new either. Southern Baptists have already confessed in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 that “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” The amendment is not attempting to invent a doctrine. It is attempting to align their cooperative boundaries with what they already say they believe.
I agree. This is what our ABWE doctrinal statement affirms. Our statement of faith reads, “Jesus Christ is the head of the church. Under him, there are two offices in the local church. The office of spiritual leadership and the ministry of the Word is called elder, overseer, or pastor. The office of service is called deacon. The New Testament delegates headship and authority of the local church to qualified men.”
While I’m not Southern Baptist, you can see that our ABWE statement of faith reads similarly to the Baptist Faith and Message and to this amendment. The office of spiritual leadership AND the ministry of the Word are reserved for qualified men.
I appreciate Dr. Mohler’s framing of this issue because he has repeatedly argued that truth and unity are not enemies. In fact, Christian unity cannot survive long when truth is treated as optional. A denomination cannot confess one thing and cooperate as though the confession means something else entirely. Or to put it in our context: a group of missionaries cannot say one thing and act differently.
Eventually, the gap between paper and practice becomes impossible to ignore. That is where Southern Baptists now find themselves. This is where every denomination, association, or missions organization should be today. They should be aligning their paper with their practice.
Complementarianism Is Not an Embarrassment
I realize the word “complementarian” lands differently today than it did a generation ago. For some, it sounds like a culture-war label. For others, it sounds like a relic of a bygone era. Even within conservative evangelicalism, there is growing pressure to redefine what complementarianism actually means.
That’s one reason I believe this conversation matters. The question before Southern Baptists (and I’d argue all of us) is not merely whether they affirm complementarian theology in theory. The question is whether they are willing to practice it consistently.
For years, many churches have described themselves as complementarian while creating ministry structures that functionally blur the distinctions they claim to uphold. The language remains conservative, but the practice increasingly resembles something else. This is often called “soft complementarianism.”
Soft complementarianism typically affirms that the office of pastor is reserved for qualified men while minimizing the significance of the pastoral office. The result is a distinction that exists on paper but becomes difficult to identify in practice.
A woman may not carry the title of pastor, but she may regularly preach to the gathered church, exercise spiritual authority over the congregation, or perform many of the functions historically associated with the office. Eventually, people begin asking an obvious question: If she is doing the work of a pastor, why does the title matter?
That question is revealing. The title is not the point. The office and function are. The authority entrusted by Christ to that office is what is important.
This is why I appreciate the language of the Truth and Unity Amendment. It recognizes that pastoral ministry is more than a job title printed on a church website. Scripture speaks not only about the office of elder or overseer but also about the responsibilities attached to that office.
When Paul describes elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, he describes men entrusted with teaching, governing, shepherding, protecting doctrine, and exercising spiritual oversight. These responsibilities are inseparable from the office itself.
The New Testament does not present preaching as a detached activity that anyone may exercise in the gathered church regardless of office. Preaching is connected to shepherding. Shepherding is connected to oversight. Oversight is connected to the eldership. That is why conservative complementarians have historically argued that the question is not simply, “Who holds the title?” The question is, “Who is carrying out the responsibilities Christ assigned to the pastoral office?”
The distinction matters because churches can unintentionally undermine biblical convictions while sincerely believing they are preserving them. I say this as someone who deeply values the ministry of women.
The New Testament is filled with examples of faithful women serving, teaching, discipling, evangelizing, counseling, mentoring, and advancing God’s mission. Churches that fail to utilize the gifts of women are not following the New Testament pattern.
At the same time, churches do not honor women by assigning them responsibilities Scripture reserves for qualified elders. Nor do we strengthen biblical complementarianism by reducing it to a debate over titles.
The issue has never been whether women are gifted enough to preach. Many are.
The issue has never been whether women are capable of leadership. Many are.
The issue is whether Christ has given His church a particular structure and whether we have the authority to alter it. I believe He has. And I believe faithfulness requires more than affirming complementarian doctrine in our statements of faith. It requires embracing it in the church’s actual life and practice.
Clarity Is a Gift
As someone who is not a Southern Baptist, I recognize that I am speaking as an observer rather than a participant in this discussion.
My role with EveryEthne and ABWE places me alongside churches from a variety of denominational backgrounds. Our mission is not to build a denomination but to help churches multiply disciples, reach people groups, plant churches, and send laborers into the harvest.
Yet from my seat, I find myself grateful for what Southern Baptists are attempting to do through the Truth and Unity Amendment. Why? Because clarity is a gift.
One of the challenges facing evangelicalism today is not that churches disagree. Disagreement has always existed. The challenge is that many churches and institutions no longer know where their theological boundaries start and end. Confessions say one thing. Practices communicate another. Statements remain unchanged while definitions quietly shift beneath them. Eventually, confusion follows.
Whether one is Baptist, Presbyterian, independent, or non-denominational, healthy cooperation requires clarity. Organizations, networks, and denominations should be honest about what they believe and what they expect from those who affiliate with them. That is what I see Southern Baptists wrestling with.
The question before them is not whether churches are free to organize themselves as they choose. Of course they are. Local church autonomy remains a Baptist conviction. The question is whether a denomination’s cooperative relationships should reflect its stated theological commitments.
As an outsider looking in, that seems like a reasonable and even necessary question. If a confession says the office of pastor is limited to qualified men as described in Scripture, should denominational cooperation reflect that conviction? Or should cooperation be broad enough to accommodate practices that appear to contradict it?
Those are not easy questions. But they are important questions. And while reasonable believers may disagree about the amendment itself, I appreciate the desire to bring greater alignment between conviction and practice.
Too often, evangelical ministries and churches avoid difficult conversations in the name of unity. Yet unity that depends on ambiguity rarely lasts. Real unity requires shared convictions that are clearly understood and honestly applied.
That is one reason I have found this conversation encouraging. Clarity matters.
As someone who spends much of his time helping churches think about multiplication, leadership development, and mission, I have become increasingly convinced that doctrinal clarity is not an obstacle to ministry effectiveness. It is one of its foundations. Churches partner with us most confidently when they know what we believe. Leaders will lead most effectively when they understand their convictions. And cooperative ministry works best when theological commitments are more than words on paper.
This Is About The Mission Too
I have heard some friends say, “Why are we talking about this when the nations need the gospel?” Or it’s been posed to me, “Why are we debating this when there are so many lost people who need the gospel?” I feel the weight of those questions.
But doctrine and mission should never be competitors.
The church’s mission depends on the church’s obedience. We do not strengthen the mission by loosening our grip on biblical truth. We strengthen our mission by submitting ourselves to Christ, including in areas where our culture presses hard against us. This amendment represents what the church has believed for 1900 years. Why is it being pressed against now? What has changed?
A confused church will not send clearly. A church uncertain about authority will struggle to preach with authority. A denomination that treats confessional language as flexible will eventually discover that its cooperation is broad but thin. A missions agency that blurs its convictions in pursuit of unity may gain broader partnerships, but it will inevitably lose the very theological clarity that gives its mission strength.
The Great Commission requires convictional churches. Churches that know what they believe. Churches that disciple men and women with joy. Churches that honor the gifts of the whole body while obeying the order Christ gives to His people.
That is why I am thankful. Not giddy. Not smug. Thankful. Thankful that Southern Baptists have taken a step toward greater clarity. Thankful that the pastoral office is being treated as a theological issue rather than merely a pragmatic one. Thankful that unity is being pursued through truth, not around it. And thankful for the countless women in our churches who love Scripture, serve faithfully, disciple deeply, teach wisely, pray fervently, and strengthen the mission of God without needing the title of pastor to prove their worth.
The world may not understand this. Many good followers of Christ in the church may reject it. But I believe Scripture is good and clear. I believe following God’s design is wise and helpful. I believe Christ is Lord over His church.
And because of that, I am thankful for the Truth and Unity Amendment.
