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 Ecclesiology, SBC

Beyond the Numbers: A Biblical, Baptist Framework for Evaluating SBC Presidential Candidates

The conversation around what qualifies a man to lead the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) needs to expand beyond the pragmatic consideration of church growth metrics. To discern whether a man is qualified to lead the SBC, messengers should evaluate his faithfulness in pastoring his local church well, looking at the four elder responsibilities outlines in Dr. John Hammett’s book Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: preaching, pastoral ministry, oversight/leadership, and character. In other words, those who aspire to lead the convention well should show the messengers that they pastor well.

Where the Discussion Has Been

For the last few decades, the messengers to the SBC have placed great value on how much a candidate’s church gives to the cooperative program (CP) and on how many people his church baptized. Consequently, the candidate who led his church to give $500,000 to CP and to baptize 300 people is deemed more faithful than the pastor who led his church to give $5,000 to CP and baptize 3 people. Though messengers will at times judge men on percentages instead of gross numbers, allowing for variation in congregational size, the basic principle remains. Faithfulness has been measured numerically.

A Better Way

Such measurements arise from the convention’s rightful focus on missions. Giving and growth stats do reveal something about a man’s ability to exercise oversight as an elder and pastor. But they do not reflect the full scope of a pastor’s leadership or reveal how he will respond to the theological challenges that the convention and its president will face. To gain that insight, messengers must look beyond the giving and baptism stats and burrow into their Baptist roots. They must examine the man’s preaching, pastoral ministry, oversight/leadership, and character.

Preaching

Since the well being of every local church and the convention depends on its obedience to the Scriptures, messengers should acquaint themselves with a candidate’s preaching ministry. Dr. Hammett writes, “It is primarily by the means of his preaching and teaching that the elder exerts the influence of his leadership in the congregation.” If messengers want to know how a man will lead the convention, they should listen to some of the president’s sermons. Podcasters and the members of the evangelical press, and pastors at round tables should ask questions that draw out the candidate’s view of preaching. Is he an expository preacher? Why or why not? How does he go about preparing sermons? Does he see men and women responding to the preaching of the gospel in his church? How many people are being baptized?

And since the ordinances or sacraments support the proclamation of the gospel acting as a visual, corporate sermon, messengers should be curious about the man’s practice of the sacraments. Does he believe in spontaneous baptism? Why or why not? Does he practice open communion? Why or why not? Moreover, if podcasters, members of the evangelical press, or messengers find questionable teaching in his sermons, they should share their findings with the candidate and give him opportunities to clarify. The messengers should familiarize themselves with a presidential candidate’s preaching ministry.

Pastoral Ministry

Messengers should try to understand the man’s pastoral ministry. As Hammett notes, pastors are called, “to protect the sheep (163).” Through public teaching and private counsel, they should show their congregations how to identify sin, repent of sin, and how to counsel and help those trapped in sin. They also must guard their local congregation from theological error. As Dr. Albert Mohler notes, “Error must be confronted, heresy must be opposed, and false teaching must be corrected.

To discern the candidate’s practice of pastoral ministry, podcasters, the evangelical press, and messengers should ask the candidate about his counseling practices and about how they have gone about confronting theological error in their churches. Do they believe in biblical counseling or more integrated approaches, and why? How do you facilitate discipleship of your members?

This category also leads into questions about the candidate’s practice of church discipline. As Southern Baptist church father, J.L. Dagg noted, “When discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it.” Does the pastor seeking to lead the SBC lead his church to discipline men and women who refuse to repent of their sins or their theological error? And if so, what sins and errors and how? Does the Baptist Faith and Message shape his pastoral ministry? What theological and practically errors does the SBC face and how would you address them?

Oversight and Leadership

The pastor is called to give “overall administrative oversight and leadership to the church (164).” Or to quote the Baptist Church Father Edward T. Hiscox on pastors, “Their duties and services have mainly reference to the spiritual interests of the body, though they properly have the oversight of all its concerns.” At this point, questions about a candidate’s church budget become relevant. How much does his church give to the cooperative program and why? How does he lead his church to maximize its budget for kingdom expansion?

Questions about his church’s worship services and leadership structure also prove relevant at this juncture. Does his church have multiple services? Why or why not? What does his church’s leadership look like? Does he have elders, a deacon board, or a leadership council and why? How does his church go about selecting leaders? Does he believe that women can be elders or pastors or functionally serve in that role?

Character

Hammett notes that the pastor is called to “serve as an example to the flock (1 Peter 5:3).” As Benjamin Keach noted in 1697, a pastor was to show himself “a good Example in Conversation, Charity, Faith, and Purity.” Any man who desires to lead the SBC should possess a character that is above reproach. Those who do not should not be leading their local church much less the convention.

Podcasters, the evangelical press, and the messengers should ask the candidates if their lives are above reproach. They should work through the lists of pastoral qualification found in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3. Do you manage your family well? How do you go about caring for your wife and children? Are you self-controlled?

These questions should not be asked from a heart of accusation but from a heart of affirmation. Questions that dig into a candidate’s life should reveal diamonds of faithfulness that encourage the messengers regardless of their tribal affiliations. If such questions uncover coal, the fault lies not so much with the one asking the questions as with the one answering them.

Final Thoughts

I am calling for an expansion of the dialogue around those nominated to be the next president of the SBC because I long to shift the debate over the SBC’s leadership from the squishy edges of pragmatic, convention politics to the hard edges of the biblical truth. I suspect questions about preaching, pastoral care, oversight, and character will reveal far more about how someone will lead the convention than giving metrics, or one’s SBC tenure, and thoughts renewal strategies. I long to see men elected to SBC office not because they have the right pedigree or politics but because their churchmanship proves they are competent to lead the SBC. In short, I want to see men elected because they faithfully preach the gospel, practice biblical pastoral ministry, give godly oversight, and display righteous character.

Peter Witkowski Church History, Discipleship

John Smyth: The Danger of Haste

JOhn-Smyth-LegacyJohn Smyth won fame from himself when he established the first English Baptist Church in 1608. Yet, few Baptists know of Smyth’s contribution to the Baptist faith because he undermined his own legacy, rapidly changing his theological convictions.

As a young man, Smyth studied a Christ College in Cambridge and was ordain by the bishop of London in 1594. Though he had been exposed to Separatists ideas in college, he remained in the Church of England, partnering with other Puritan ministers’ intent on reforming the national church.  Understandably, the Church of England took issue with Smyth’s unauthorized pleas for reform and removed him from his position as city lecturer in 1602. “Though he was loath to give offense” and did all that he could to stay in the church of England, Smyth continued to break the law. In 1606, he lost his ordination because he preached without church approval. And in 1607, he faced penalties for practicing medicine without a license. Though Smyth championed the Calvinistic doctrine of the Church of England and infant baptism, legal, clerical, and eventually financial pressures drove him to conclude that the Church of England was beyond repair and no longer a true church.

In 1607, he became one of the leaders of the covenanting Separatist’s congregation in Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. He taught that the church should be founded upon a voluntary agreement between members but allowed elders to rule the congregation and permitted infant baptism. Because of persecution, Smyth and some of his congregation fled to Holland while others headed to America on the Mayflower.

Once on new soil, Smyth moved beyond separatism because he opposed elder rule, taught that tithing was an ordinance, said only Greek and Hebrew Bibles could be read during worship, and became convinced of believer’s baptism, the sprinkling of adults post conversion. Acting on his newly acquire convictions, he dissolved his Separatist church and formed the first Baptist congregation in 1609. That year, he baptized himself and then 36 others, stating that group of two to three people ordained by the Holy Spirit could start a new church. At this time, he also changed his views about original sin and predestination, repudiating his Calvinistic convictions.

Had Smyth stopped his theological evolution in 1609, more Baptists would know of him today. But, the evolution continued.

By 1610, Smyth concluded that his Baptist church was not a true church. Smyth now believed Baptism had to be performed pastor whose baptism could be traced to the apostolic era. Convinced of succession, a doctrine he had vehemently attacked only months earlier, Smyth encouraged his church to apply for membership in the Waterland Church founded by the Mennonite movement. Smyth’s church members could no longer handle his theological about-faces and split. When Smyth died in Amsterdam in 1615, the remaining members of his church joined the Mennonite church, leaving behind a tainted legacy for the Baptist faith.

Smyth’s rash application of his theological change should serve as a warning to modern pastors. In his zeal to get the Bible right, Smyth spent much of his life getting the Bible wrong. In the span of seven years, Smyth championed Anglican, Puritan, Baptist, Separatist, and Mennonite theology. With each move, he attacked those he left behind, ungraciously viewing them to be fools or servants of the anti-Christ because they rejected Smyth’s new convictions. He said the Puritans practiced a false faith because they stayed in the church of England, a church he once fought to defend. He declared that the Separatists bore the mark of the beast because they practiced infant baptism. and succession. Later in life, he criticized Baptist for not practicing succession.

During his lifetime, he both defended and attacked congregationalism, succession, Calvinism, and infant baptism. Predictably with each change, Smyth had to disavow portions of his earlier writings. Because of his doctrinal instability and harsh tone, Smyth divided his church and struggled to maintain relationships with Thomas Helwys and other close friends. Smyth’s life revealed that zeal detached from maturity harms the witness of gospel.

Paul wrote that gospel infants, “were tossed about by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine.” The pastor who desires to lead his church well, and the church member who values godly leadership should learn from Smyth’s haste. They should realize that bold convictions detached from prayer, patience, and counsel lead to confusion and division. As Proverbs 19:2 warns: “Desire without knowledge is not good, and whoever makes haste with his feet misses his way.” 

To lead well, the pastor must lead calmly and patiently, wrestling with truth until he has mastered it. Impatience appeared to constantly push Smyth from theological genius to theological fool. The pastor who strikes out like Smyth and begins to blog, tweet, and lecture on topics he only just encountered will harm to his church.  Often your fluctuating convictions of today cannot help but be the embarrassments of tomorrow. The life of Smyth revealed that the prudent pastor should workout his theology in his office long before he speaks about his new convictions and calls for change. Haste leads to division and fractured legacies.

Friends, have we learned the lesson of John Smyth?