Peter Witkowski SBC

One Down, One To Go: What 2026 SBC Annual Meeting Got Right and What Comes Next

I left the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2026 Annual Meeting grateful for my fellow messengers’ commitment to the Scriptures.

The Truth and Unity Amendment: What it Means

A touch under 75% of my fellow messengers voted to adopt Dr. Albert Mohler’s Truth and Unity Amendment to the SBC constitution. The vote reaffirms the SBC’s commitment to the historical Baptist and (more importantly) biblical truth that only qualified men can serve as pastors/elders/overseers of a local SBC church.

Though some national media outlets and quite a few social media personalities have portrayed the Truth and Unity Amendment as an assault upon the dignity of womanhood and/or a violation of local church autonomy, the amendment neither restricts women from serving their local churches nor requires churches to fire their women pastors. Mohler’s amendment speaks only to how women interact with the office of pastor/elder/overseer. It does not address, much less condemn, the woman teaching a ladies’ Bible study, the woman organizing meals for the new mom, or the woman sharing the gospel with her neighbor like the women of old did that first Easter Sunday. As the companion resolution to the Mohler amendment on the office and function of a pastor/elder/overseer makes clear, Southern Baptists continue to “express gratitude for the indispensable service, discipleship, evangelism, missions work, and ministry contributions of women throughout Southern Baptist life and encourage churches to continue affirming and deploying women in biblically faithful ways.”

In declaring “that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture,” the messengers also have not limited who a local church can hire. Rather, in passing the Truth and Unity Amendment, the messengers have sought to limit who can cooperate or partner with the SBC. Even if the amendment passes again and is enshrined in the SBC constitution at the 2027 Annual Meeting, Baptist churches can still have women pastors/elders/overseers in their pulpits on Sunday if they so choose. The messengers are powerless to remove said women pastors. The Mohler Amendment cannot proscribe whom the church hires. But the amendment will prohibit those churches that employ women pastors/elders/overseers from cooperating with or being part of the SBC. Just like our political parties and countless civic institutions, the SBC reserves the right to set its boundaries of cooperation. And it has historically attempted to build those boundaries around the clear teaching of Scripture as recounted in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

I believe that the Truth and Unity Amendment helps to strengthen these biblical boundaries of cooperation. The amendment reaffirms the teaching of the apostle Paul, who proclaimed that only qualified men (“the husband of one wife” – Ti 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2) could serve as pastors/elders/overseers and who also proclaimed that he did “not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Tim. 2:12). I am thankful that the majority of the messengers at the 2026 Annual Meeting stood with the apostle Paul….stood with the teaching of Scripture.

Come to Indy

But the battle is not yet won. For Mohler’s amendment to be incorporated into the SBC constitution, a supermajority (67%) of the messengers must pass it a second time at the 2027 Annual Meeting. I encourage all like-minded Southern Baptists to be at the 2027 Annual Meeting in Indianapolis. Let’s pass the Truth and Unity Amendment one more time and thereby put an end to this generation’s debate over women pastors in the SBC.

Resolutions Worth Reading

The messengers also voted to adopt a slate of resolutions that addressed everything from political violence and antisemitism to bivocational pastors and the use of technology in the local church from a biblical perspective. The adopted resolutions reaffirmed messengers’ “continued opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide in all its forms, including practices now described as ‘“medical aid in dying”’ and ‘“death with dignity;”’; their condemnation of “political violence in all its forms, including assassinations, attempted assassinations, terrorism, rioting, mob intimidation, vandalism, threats, and coercion as morally evil, contrary to the sanctity of human life, destructive of ordered liberty, eroding equal protection and the rule of law, and incompatible with the way of Christ”; and reaffirmed their belief that “a local church is the embodied assembly of baptized believers, gathered for his glory and gifted for service, for the good of one another, and for the advance of the gospel, and is not merely a virtual or technological experience,” nor can any digital form, by itself, constitute a New Testament church (Romans 12:3–13; 1 Corinthians 12). Though these resolutions prove non-binding, they do not prove inconsequential. The resolutions convey the opinions of the messengers and thereby can influence the practices of the SBC’s entities (IMB, NAMB, etc.) and shape the broader SBC culture. I encourage you to give them a read.

An Unending Work

Though I took great joy in most of my fellow messengers’ actions, I still recognize that the SBC remains an imperfect people (after all, I am one of them). A few messengers explored a rabbit trail about future convention sites with far too much zeal, others attempted (thankfully without success) to inject some conspiracy-theory language into the resolution on antisemitism, and still others took to the microphone for political causes incidental to the convention’s missional and educational purposes. But in each instance, the broader body of messengers graciously restrained these and other less-than-optimal impulses that arose. The body of Christ did its work.

The same could be said of the messengers’ choice of officers. Though all the men put forward would have been faithful leaders, the messengers chose the better of their good options. For example, I think Dr. Willy Rice will make an excellent SBC president and look forward to seeing him bring his principles of renewal and reformation to bear on our convention.

Final Thoughts

As Dr. Mohler often says, “Southern Baptists eventually get things right.” This year, Dr. Mohler’s maxim came true. The messengers got things right.

My hope and prayer is that the spirit of Christian charity and biblical fidelity that defined the 2026 Annual Meeting will once again dominate the 2027 Annual Meeting.

Peter Witkowski SBC

The Truth and Unity Amendment Debate: What’s Really Going on & Why it Matters

Over the last few weeks, Dr. Albert Mohler’s Truth and Unity Amendment has faced increasing opposition on a diversity of fronts. Though the arguments put forward address a wide swath of issues, they can all be traced back to two very similar visions for the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) intent on the same end: an SBC that cooperates with churches led by women pastors/elders/overseers.

The Heart of the Amendment

Next week during the 2026 annual meeting, Dr. Mohler will propose his amendment to Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the SBC Constitution. It will ensure that each church which cooperates with (or in other words is a part of the SBC), “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.” This amendment will help guarantee that the SBC’s constitution and practice will align with the SBC’s doctrinal statement, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. It states, “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.” In short, Mohler’s amendment seeks to ensure that the SBC will only cooperate and partner with churches that appoint qualified men to the office of pastor/elder/overseer. In other words, it will further enshrine the historic, Baptist complementarian view of manhood and womanhood into the life and practice of the SBC. 

The Heart of the Opposition

Though those familiar with the SBC would expect such an amendment to be almost universally supported, many voices with ties to Southern Baptist institutions and to state conventions have come out against it citing one of two related reasons. First, some oppose the amendment because they believe the office of pastor/elder/overseer should be open to qualified men and women. A second (and I suspect the larger of the two) opposes the amendment because they believe that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is not open to women. But they also believe that the SBC should still cooperate with churches that have women pastors. Both groups hope to drive the SBC away from its historic Baptist understandings so that they can remake the SBC into a free association of churches that openly partner with churches led by men and women pastors/elders/overseers for the sake of advancing the gospel.

Admittedly, few if any of those in positions of at the Executive Committee, the International Mission Board (IMB), the North American Mission Board (NAMB), the SBC’s Seminaries, the state conventions, or other prominent Baptist groups have made such direct appeals to the messengers who will decide whether or not to accept the amendment.

To date, those who oppose the amendment have taken a more evasive tack. They speak about how they respect Mohler, about how they support Southern Seminary, or about how they have identified with complementarian principles in years past. But then they go on to speak against Mohler’s amendment, citing its lack of historical precedent, their fear that the amendment will harm women, their worry that it will infringe upon local church autonomy, or the amendment’s failure to remove unqualified men from their SBC pastorates. And if those arguments fail, they toss out the mission card. The SBC meets to evangelize the lost, not to criticize the missteps of a few sincere sisters.

Though nice and at times well-reasoned, these arguments all have the same foundation. They are put forward by those Southern Baptists who believe that women can be pastors/elders/overseers or by those who believe that the SBC should cooperate with churches that have women pastors/elders/overseers. And make no mistake, both groups that oppose the Mohler amendment possess the same goal: cooperating with churches pastored by women for the sake of missions.   

A Plea for an Open Debate

Though I disagree with those who oppose the Truth and Unity Amendment and plan to vote for it, I still believe the issue should be debated in good faith on the convention floor. I call on both the opponents and supporters of the Truth and Unity Amendment to speak openly and honestly of their vision for the SBC this June.

Dear SBC messengers, if you believe the Scriptures permit a woman to serve as a pastor/elder/overseer, then I encourage you to make the argument from the Scriptures on the convention floor and in your blogs and podcasts. If you believe that the SBC should cooperate with churches that have women pastors/elders/overseers, I encourage you to make that argument lovingly from the Scriptures from the convention floor and in your blogs and podcasts. And if you share my belief that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is for qualified men, then I invite you to join me in lovingly making that argument from the floor of the convention and in your blogs and podcasts. Let’s speak openly of our visions for the future of the SBC.

Final Thoughts

I understand that my vision for the SBC may be out of step with the vision being put forward by most of the Executive Committee, NAMB, the IMB, and countless state conventions. I also understand that my vision for the SBC may be rebuffed by the messengers. But I long for it to be rebuffed by messengers who understand the issues and not those who have been confused by secondary arguments that keep the two egalitarian visions for the SBC hidden in the murky waters of vagueness. I long for the leaders and the messengers to courageously, lovingly, and respectfully share their visions for the SBC, stating whether they do or do not want the SBC to cooperate with churches led by women pastors/elders/overseers. May the Lord bless the SBC with such clarity as these matters come to the convention floor. May truth and unity win!

Peter Witkowski SBC

Tree Beard and the Case for Thoughtful Conservative Baptist Collaboration

To facilitate greater cooperation within the Southern Baptist Convention (and one could argue within broader evangelicalism) conservative Baptists who cherish scriptural fidelity need to embrace the reasonableness of J.R. Tolkien’s Treebeard. In other words, if conservative Baptists hope to nudge their convention back towards right doctrine, they must allow for diversity on nonessential Baptist doctrines and practices, embrace all who follow the essential doctrines, and oppose all who oppose the essential doctrines.  

A Quick Trip to Middle Earth

Treebeard, the mythical tree shepherd of Fangorn forest, first appears to the hobbits Merry and Pippin in the second volume of the Lord of the Rings. After telling Treebeard of their quest to keep the all-powerful ring out of the grasp of the evil Lord Sauron, the hobbits ask Treebeard the all-important question of whose side the Ent was on. ‘“And what about yourself?’ asked Merry (74).”

Treebeard responds as follows: “I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me: nobody cares for the woods as I care for them, not even the Elves. Still, I take more kindly to Elves than to others…And there are some things, of course, whose side I am altogether not on…I am against them altogether…these Orcs, and their masters (Two Towers, 75).”

In this short paragraph Tolkien moves his plot forward and provides conservative Southern Baptists with an analogy for proper, meaningful, and yet wisely limited cooperation.

Allow for Diversity on Non-Essentials

First, conservative Southern Baptists must allow for diversity on non-essential doctrines and issues, acknowledging that no one else will ever be fully aligned with them on every subject and topic. No person in this fallen and confused world will be perfectly aligned with his brothers and sisters at every point. To borrow from Treebeard, no one will care for the woods, one’s secondary theological priorities, and one’s pet projects with the same fervor as the one who made them his pet project. Even the most seasoned and friendly of reformed Baptist can and will diverge at points as Albert Mohler and Danny Akin’s controversy over the rightness of sporting a hoodie in the pulpit has made clear. If conservative Baptists make absolute fidelity to their personal worldview the test of cooperation, they will find themselves isolated, alone, and able to influence precious little outside their homes.

Embrace Those Who Follow The Essentials

Second, conservative Southern Baptists should partner with anyone who supports the essentials of the Baptist Faith. When putting together coalitions to define marriage as between a man and a woman, to end abortion, or to restrict the office of pastor and elder to biblically qualified men, conservative Baptists should walk beside all who share their convictions even if they diverge over secondary matters such as politics, education, the plurality of elders, spontaneous baptisms, and Calvinism.

In arguing for broad cooperation, I am neither attempting to minimize nor cancel the debates being had by the Never-Trumpers and the Pro-Trump advocates or those being had by Calvinists and Arminians. Such robust conversations over these and a host of other issues should continue in Christian charity. I believe the SBC is better for such discussions. But I also believe that we can still partner with those with whom we disagree on lesser things to advance the essentials of the Baptist faith. In other words, instead of criticizing Ents for not being more Evlish or Elves for not being more Entish, some Baptist for not being more Trumpish, conservative Baptists should embrace the spirit of Merry and Pippin who promised Treebeard that, “We will do what can (77).” Wherever the roads traveled by the various tribes of conservative and even pragmatic Baptists “go together (77)” conservative should embrace those who will walk with them.

Oppose Those Who Oppose the Essential

Third, conservative Baptists must not partner with Orcs who openly undermine the essentials of the Baptist Faith. Conservative Baptists cannot cooperate with those who do not share their view of salvation, the authority of Scripture, and Baptist Confessions because such individuals traveling away from and not further into the historical Christian.

For example, Southern Baptists cannot partner with those who deny the trinity or the doctrine of justification by faith alone. To walk with them, Baptist would have to surrender the essential claims of the gospel. As a theologian of old noted, “Unity without the gospel is a worthless unity; it is the very unity of hell (106).” Conservative Baptists cannot partner with fellow Baptists if the deny essential elements of the gospel.  

They also cannot partner with those who deny the authority of Scripture.” Those who follow the path of “Thus says the watching world’ or the path of “Thus says the attorneys” or the path of “Thus says the latest public opinion poll” will in short order cease to walk the path of “Thus says the Lord.”  As the authors who helped compose the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 note, “We believe that true cooperation is grounded in a common commitment to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and in a common obedience to the Bible as the Word of God (145).” Baptist unity flows through scriptural authority.

Lastly, conservative Baptist cannot walk with those who seek to undermine Baptist confessional statements. While confessional and doctrinal statements fall short of the authority of Scripture, they do form the foundation of Baptist cooperation and preserve the SBC from rejecting the clear teaching of the Bible. For example, if the SBC allows messengers to interpret the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in a way that allows for practices that contradict a direct reading of their confession, then the basis of SBC cooperation will shift from its doctrinal statement to the whims of its messengers’ feelings about those doctrinal statements. In other words, the basis of unity will shift from a shared understanding of the Scriptures as articulated in the document to a shared understanding of someone’s opinions of that document. Such a shift leads one away from the path of historic Baptist faith and until it places them at odds with the essentials of the Baptist faith. Conservative Baptists must reject such cooperation. They cannot partner with Orcs on their path to Moria.

But they can work for the betterment of Orcs and extend grace to those that turn from their Orcish errors. Past mistakes and divergence on essential doctrines should not keep conservative Baptists working with those newly return to historic conservative Baptist positions. Instead of chiding their slowness, conservative Baptists should praise their transformation. If ever a people understood the need for grace, mercy, and forgiveness it should be conservative Baptists who value the gospel precisely because they have experienced the unmerited forgiveness and love of the Lord and Savior. May we have a heart like Treebeard and Merry and Pippin make common cause with all who long to advance the essentials of the Baptist faith.