Women Pastors – Witkowski Blog

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!

Without question, the Law Amendment and its call to restrict the office of pastor to qualified men has capture the attention of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Pastors, SBC entity presidents, and even Dr. Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary have published videos, blogs, and essays in defense of or in opposition to this amendment. Though the vote on the amendment can rightly be viewed as a referendum on whether the SBC will permit women to serve as pastors, it also represents an even more basic and existential question: will the convention be defined by the Scriptures or by pragmatism?

What About Missions?

Most who oppose the amendment do not do so for hermeneutical or Scriptural reasons. Like the amendments’ supporter, they recognize that 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1 and the Scriptures in general limit the office of pastor or elder to qualified men. The line, “I’m a complementarian but oppose the Law Amendment because….” has been used by many. The issue is not what does the Bible say but whether obedience to the Bible on secondary issues will prove too costly.

Most oppose the amendment because they fear such actions will dampen if not outright extinguish the SBC’s heart for missions. They view the Law Amendment as an attack on both the financial and the human resources needed to evangelize our nation and the world. Only with the help of churches who employ women pastors can the SBC hope to fulfill the great commission.

But such concern should not be seen as the exclusive domain of those opposed to the Law Amendment. Those in favor of the amendment also possess a passion for missions and fear that getting the amendment wrong could hurt missions. The disagreement over the amendment turns out not to be over whether or not to do missions but over how to best do missions. In other words, is the gospel best advanced by associations bound together by shared doctrinal convictions and a heart for biblical fidelity even if said group is small? Or is the gospel best advanced by large associations united by minimal convictions that can be remolded and even jettisoned for the sake of greater results? Scriptural authority or pragmatism?

What Can the 20^th Century Teach Us?

While this discussion may prove novel to this generation of SBCers, it is not a new development. During the twentieth century, our evangelical brothers and sisters in England faced a similar dilemma. Seeking to evangelize the rapidly secularizing culture of post WW2 Britain, men such as John Stott encouraged evangelicals to embrace those who held doctrines at odds with traditional evangelical convictions for the sake of missions. The argument then as it is today consisted of a call to expand the circle of cooperation for the purpose of reaching the world…to look the other way when discussing things such as women pastors and the inerrancy of Scripture so that the busy coal miner, the over worked mom, and the poor youth could be won for the gospel. Pragmatism for the sake of salvations.

Dr. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones who pastored Westminster Chapel during those tumultuous years shared Stott’s passion for evangelism. But the Welsh doctor disagreed with his fellow evangelical’s methodology. He feared that big tent pragmatism as represented by the ecumenical movement of his day would not foster but rather frustrate missions. According to Lloyd-Jones, missions was, “highly doctrinal.” Given that salvation depended upon a person’s acceptance of the Scriptures as God’s word, the deity of Jesus, and his substitutionary atonement and resurrection, the Welsh pastor believed that the church’s ability to reach the lost depended on the church’s faithful proclamation of and adherence to the Scriptures. He wrote, “If you want to help others you must know your doctrine.” Lloyd-Jones also noted in a sermon on Philippians 4:3 that, “If the church is not right…she grieves the Holy Spirit, and if she grieves the Holy Spirit, she loses her power and she cannot be a missionary Church.” Or as he stated a touch more positively elsewhere, “Do not be concerned about numbers. If we stand for God’s truth, we can be certain that God will honor and bless us.” If a church embraced women preachers or pastors (an act which the Scriptures “prohibits:) it would not enrich by starve its missional output. For Lloyd-Jones, doctrinal purity was not a missional suppressant or limitation but there very means by which the church would fan missions into flame. He concluded, “The real understanding of doctrine leads to a heart’s longing and desire and prayer for the salvation of the lost.”

Is this A Matter of Faith?

For the sake of Christian charity, one must admit that the discussions around the Law Amendment as did the ones in twentieth century England prove secondary and not primary. It is a discussion among brothers and sisters and not one of enemies. The open defense of women pastors does not negate one’s hope in the justifying power of Jesus’s blood. Nor do such positions necessarily arise from duplicity. The SBC would do well to embrace the charity that Lloyd-Jones extended to his opponents and assert with him that, “We do not impute wrong motives to them. We grant them that they are as sincere as we are and as honest as we are, and that they believe the gospel as we believe it.” Christians can disagree about over such things.

Does Ecclesiology Matter?

But they cannot disagree about ecclesiology and hope to effectively evangelize the lost. As Lloyd-Jones noted, “If we want revival we must start by considering this doctrine of the nature of the Christian church.” Expanding upon this idea, Lloyd-Jones proclaimed, “You can be a Christian and yet defective in your doctrine, but our concern and our endeavor is to have true doctrine presented in its fullness because we believe that it is only as this is believed and preached and propagated that men and women are going to be converted and added to the church. When a church has gone wrong in doctrine, she has ceased to be a converting influence.” In other words, the success of missions depended upon an affirmation of the essentials of the faith and upon a biblical ecclesiology. Without such supports, missions would slowly die. And any denomination that either willfully or passively adopted an ecclesiology that runs counter to the Scriptures and that willfully dilutes its adherence to its doctrinal statement will not increase but rather destroy its missional output.

Moreover, such changes to secondary or even tertiary doctrines will (if unchallenged) undermine more than missions. They will eventually reach the central tenants of the gospel and destroy the very institutions they claim to be saving. Lloyd-Jones observed, “Every part because it belongs to every other part…if you make what appears to be a minor change somewhere on the circumference it will soon have its effect even upon the center.” If Christians accept that the rejection of the Scriptures can lead to more conversions, then no doctrine will prove essential or uneditable. Given enough time, uncontested, evangelical pragmatism will hollow out even the most cherished of doctrines of the SBC.

What Happened in England?

Though some followed Lloyd-Jones’s advice and have continued to thrive, most British denominations and their evangelical cohorts rejected the Welsh pastor’s appeals and embraced the big tent pragmatism of their day. Unfortunately, that choice has proved costly. If researchers’ predictions hold true, most of England’s historic denominations will disappear by 2050. Even Stott’s beloved Anglican church is on pace to disappear around 2060. In other words, Lloyd-Jones has been vindicated: missions cannot thrive apart from sound doctrine and ecclesiology.

What Will We Do?

Now we must decide. As the messengers gather in Indianapolis, they will undoubtedly speak to the question of women pastors. But in so doing, they will also speak to the essence of the convention. They will determine if the SBC is primarily a doctrinal people or a pragmatic people. To borrow from Lloyd-Jones, “The ultimate question facing us these days is whether our faith is in men and their power to organize, or in the truth of God in Christ Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit.” May we choose wisely. May we Christ Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit. May we choose the Law Amendment.