The FAQs: Southern Baptists Debate Designation of Women in Ministry

What just happened?

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, is embroiled in a heated intramural debate over the designation of women in ministry. The debate concerns a proposed amendment to the SBC constitution referred to as the “Law amendment” (named after Michael Law, who proposed the amendment), which supporters say aims to clarify the SBC’s stance on women in pastoral roles and unify the convention around a traditional, complementarian understanding of gender roles in the church.

However, the amendment has also faced significant opposition from critics who argue it’s unnecessary, divisive, and could infringe on the autonomy of local churches.

What is the Law amendment?

In the SBC’s 2022 annual meeting, Michael Law, a pastor at Arlington Baptist Church in Virginia, proposed a motion that the convention amend its constitution to read, “does not affirm . . . a woman as pastor of any kind.” The motion was referred to the SBC Executive Committee.

Law later submitted a letter to the SBC Executive Committee titled “A Call to Keep Our Unity ,” cosigned by more than 2,000 SBC pastors and seminary professors. In the letter, Law said,

Personally, I felt the need to offer this amendment because five Southern Baptist churches, roughly within a five-mile radius of my own congregation, are employing women as pastors of various kinds, including women serving as “Sr. Pastor.” Many others have found that a number of Southern Baptist churches appoint, affirm, or employ women as pastors in their areas, too. These churches often use a modified title—co-pastor, worship pastor, women and children’s pastor, discipleship pastor, or youth pastor—but all trade on the office of “pastor.”

Article III of the SBC constitution lists five points that place churches within the definition of cooperation with the SBC. The amendment would add a new requirement to Article III, stating the SBC will only cooperate with churches that “affirm, appoint or employ only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by scripture.”

What are the reasons given for supporting the Law amendment?

Reasons that supporters of the amendment have given include the following.

Theological Conviction

Supporters believe the Bible clearly teaches the office of pastor/elder is limited to qualified men, as stated in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 . They see the amendment as a way to uphold this biblical and theological position within the SBC. Proponents argue the Bible teaches that women are not to exercise authority over or teach men in the church.

Andrew Walker, professor of ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argues in favor of the Law amendment :

It affirms what the Bible affirms. It really is that simple. Arguments about confessionalism, precedent, consequences, and the like are distractions from a more central question: Does the Bible affirm that only qualified men can be pastors? Yes. I want to make it my goal in life to never vote against what I think is clear from Scripture.

Clarity and Unity

Supporters contend the amendment would provide much-needed clarity on the SBC’s stance regarding women in pastoral roles, which they believe has become increasingly unclear and divisive. Some believe that while the issue is already clear enough in SBC documents, additional clarification is still necessary.

Boyce College professor Denny Burk says ,

I do not wish my endorsement to imply that the BF&M and SBC Constitution are currently unclear on the matter of female pastors. I believe that the [Baptist Faith and Message] is already sufficiently clear that the pastoral office is reserved for men as qualified by scripture, and that would apply to any pastor (senior, associate, or otherwise). [emphasis in original]

Juan Sánchez, TGC Board chairman and senior pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, Texas, says the amendment addresses what he calls the “sloppy” use of the word pastor in many Southern Baptist churches. “I don’t think it’s intentional. And I would argue that there are a lot of churches in the Southern Baptist Convention that may have a woman functioning in the children’s ministry that has the title pastor,” Sanchez says . “And probably this woman does not see herself as a pastor, does not want to be a pastor, does not want to preach.”

They hope the change to the constitution will help unify the convention around this issue, which they see as crucial for the SBC’s future.

Protecting the Next Generation

Some supporters argue the amendment is necessary to safeguard the next generation of Southern Baptists from the influence of feminism and cultural confusion about gender and gender roles. They believe upholding a male-only pastorate is essential for passing on a proper understanding of biblical gender roles to the next generation.

Blake White, lead pastor at South Side Baptist Church in Abilene, Texas, wrote a letter to express his support for the amendment:

In our day, confusion about gender and gender roles is at an all-time high. Feminism is the air we breathe and has crept into too many of our churches. We have a unique and timely opportunity to speak a clear and needed Word to a confused world.

Addressing Existing Confusion

Proponents point to the 2022 SBC meeting in Anaheim, California, where the Credentials Committee’s recommendation to remove Saddleback Church for employing female pastors led to what Heath Lambert, the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, calls “a great deal of tumultuous debate .”

They see the amendment as a way to clearly define what a pastor is according to the SBC’s theological convictions.

Upholding Baptist History and Identity

Supporters argue the SBC has historically insisted on only men serving as pastors, and that failing to settle the issue now will, as White said, “erode unity, demonstrate drift, and convey compromise.” They believe approving the amendment is necessary to remain faithful to the SBC’s Baptist heritage and identity.

Why do other complementarians oppose the Law amendment?

Opponents of the amendment have given several reasons.

Constitutional Concerns

Critics argue the amendment is the wrong mechanism for addressing this issue, as the Baptist Faith and Message, not the SBC constitution, should be the primary vehicle for clarifying theological positions.

Former SBC president and TGC Council member J. D. Greear says ,

I want to be clear: I don’t oppose this amendment for theological reasons, but constitutional ones. Advocates of the amendment have expressed a desire to see support of complementarianism clarified and strengthened in our Convention, and I support that. This is the wrong mechanism for that.

Some worry that enshrining this specific issue in the constitution could have unintended consequences and set a precedent for further constitutional changes on theological matters. They believe the constitution should focus on the core elements of the SBC’s confession while allowing more latitude and autonomy in applying those beliefs at the local church level.

Autonomy of Local Churches

Some opponents of the amendment say it could infringe on the autonomy of local churches by empowering the SBC to investigate and potentially disfellowship churches over the issue of women in pastoral roles, even in cases where the church’s practices don’t clearly violate the amendment.

“While I don’t expect the Credentials Committee to be proactively hunting for churches in violation,” Greear adds , “if they receive submissions that fit the bill—even if the submissions come from a list of 170—they will be bound by our governing documents to assess those churches and to apply the standards, whether they want to or not” [emphasis in original].

Critics argue this process would undermine the historic Baptist principle of local church autonomy and could set a dangerous precedent for the SBC to meddle in the internal affairs of its member churches.

Steve Bezner, senior pastor of Houston Northwest Church in Texas, asks , “If the Law Amendment passes and if it is applied in the way that its supporters desire, then the convention will reach a moment of decision: how will it handle churches like mine? How will it handle other churches who have, for example, a female Women’s Pastor or Children’s Pastor?”

Potential for Divisiveness

Some leaders worry the amendment could further divide the SBC, rather than unify it, and divert attention and resources away from the convention’s core mission of fulfilling the Great Commission. They argue the amendment could exacerbate existing tensions and lead to increased conflict and polarization within the SBC.

Gregory Perkins, president of the National African American Fellowship and lead pastor of The View Church in Menifee, California, sent a letter to SBC president Bart Barber:

The National African American Fellowship, SBC (NAAF) is a vested SBC partner that represents over 4000 congregations who self-identify as predominantly African American. . . . we strongly urge our SBC family to consider entering a time of prayer and dialogue because for many, this most recent decision is an unnecessary infringement upon the autonomy of the local church. It has created division within the SBC and may disproportionately impact NAAF affiliated congregations.

Addressing Existing Processes

Critics point out the SBC already has mechanisms in place, such as the Credentials Committee, to address issues related to women in pastoral roles without the need for a constitutional amendment. They argue the Saddleback case in 2022 demonstrated that the existing processes can effectively handle such situations and that the amendment is unnecessary.

Bruce Frank, lead pastor of Biltmore Church in North Carolina and nominee for SBC president, writes ,

If the current mechanism is in place to remove one of the largest churches in the SBC, as it did in 2023, then the framework already exists for removing a church that wanders too far from the Baptist Faith and Message. I agree with SBC President Bart Barber when he stated, “the SBC already requires that churches limit the office of pastor to men without the Law Amendment.”

Unintended Consequences

Some opponents worry the amendment could have unintended consequences, such as affecting the use of nonpastoral titles (e.g., “minister”) by women in support roles or excluding churches that don’t strictly adhere to the amendment’s language. There are also concerns the amendment could be applied in overly rigid or legalistic ways, undermining the SBC’s historical flexibility and diversity.

Rob Collingsworth, who works as director of strategic relationships for Criswell College, says ,

By instituting language into our constitution that requires not only that pastors and elders be men, but that they be biblically qualified, we are constitutionally requiring our credentials committee to respond to reports involving subjective criteria. Gender is objective. Hospitality? Respectability? Not so much. These churches could find themselves facing a credentials inquiry not because of their affirmation of homosexuality or their promotion of racism, but because their pastor posted a picture on Facebook drinking a beer or got hotheaded on Twitter.

What’s the next step for resolution on the Law amendment?

Amending the SBC constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in two successive annual meetings. The SBC annual meeting is the forum where messengers (voting delegates) from SBC churches gather to make decisions on important issues, including constitutional amendments.

The Law amendment was first approved at the SBC annual meeting in June 2023. For the amendment to take effect, it must be approved by a two-thirds majority vote again at the next SBC annual meeting, scheduled for June 2024 in Indianapolis. If the amendment is approved a second time, it’ll then be ratified and added to the SBC constitution.

(Joe Carter is a senior writer for The Gospel Coalition, author of The Life and Faith Field Guide for Parents , the editor of the NIV Lifehacks Bible , and coauthor of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator . He also serves as an associate pastor at McLean Bible Church in Arlington, Virginia.)