I’ve seen Dr. Mohler up close. I’ve never seen him be anything less than respectful and kind towards women. He loves and honors his wife Mary. Their relationship is a model well worth emulating. And Mary is about as amazing a person as you can find — as kind as she is intelligent. My wife and I love them both. My disagreements here carry no disrespect.
What This Amendment Gets Right: It Finally Puts Unspoken Expectations Into Writing
For years, leaders enforced standards that went beyond the Danvers Statement and the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, policing practices those documents never actually prohibited. “Soft complementarians” and “generous complementarians” have become informal penalties for views that technically remained within bounds. This is at the heart of the new initiatives, correctives to earlier statements some feel didn’t go far enough.
Doctrinal statements should give both restrictions and liberty. They should function like guideposts. For too long, leaders inserted trip wires — unspoken and unclear expectations — where the aforementioned statements were silent. If you want stricter standards than your statements require, write them down and let people decide in good conscience. That’s what this amendment and the 2026 resolutions attempt to do. Bravo.
This Isn’t Really About Women Pastors
The BF&M 2000 already required male elders. The convention has already disfellowshipped churches over female elders. A new amendment or resolution was not needed to do those things. So why the amendment and the resolutions? These moves go further: they’re about women teaching just about anywhere men might be influenced.
That’s why Dr. Mohler recently went viral for criticizing women podcasting about their church’s sermons, something he likened to pastoring. This is about expanding the boundary well beyond the pulpit — though you wouldn’t pick up on that from reading the resolutions.
But I’d bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that’s precisely where this is heading.
The amendment ties the elder office inseparably to the preaching and teaching function in gathered worship. The 2026 resolution that pairs with the amendment states that “teaching Scripture and preaching the Word to the gathered church is essentially connected to the office of pastor/elder/overseer and should not be separated from the qualifications for pastoral ministry.” Is it true that you cannot separate preaching and teaching from the office of elder?
That depends on who gets to answer the question. I think most churches and denominational leaders have made the answers clear in thier practice.
Where It Falls Apart
Here’s the problem: seminary presidents — including those championing this amendment — travel weekly to preach at churches where they hold no elder role. Every time they do, they separate the office from the function the amendment and resolutions declare as inseparable. If only elders should preach to a congregation, that rule applies to visiting seminary presidents too.
It won’t be enforced that way, of course. Because, after all, they’re men. And to paraphrase James Brown, the SBC is a man’s world.
There is a loophole here. The resolution says preaching should not be separated from “the qualifications for pastoral ministry.” That’s the loophole. Take note. Watch and see.
Denominational leaders who frequently enjoy the privilege of being flown in to preach at SBC churches across the nation will use this mantra, while they may not be a pastor/elder at the churches where they are guest preaching, they are going to say they are fine since they meet the qualifications for elder.
A little self-assessment and abracadabra: they’re good to go. How convenient. They get to separate the office from the function when it serves their purposes — and comes with an honorarium.
The Follow-Up Someone Needs to Request (Demand)
I preached last weekend in Hawaii at a non-denominational church where I’m not an elder — and I’m fine with that, because I don’t believe the amendment is right or necessary. I think pastor/elders can invite others to preach and teach as they see fit. That’s not only because I believe in the autonomy of the local church (which I do), but because I don’t believe many of the boundaries outlined in the amendment and the resolution are biblical.
They are add-ons, not something clearly in the text. They are extra-biblical — preferences and matters to be considered by congregations and their pastors/elders, not clear Scriptural requirements to be mandated across a denomination.
So, I do think the function of preaching is “essentially connected” to the office of elder/pastor. Just not in the same way as it’s being talked about in Orlando right now. I don’t think the essential connection means pastors/elders can never delegate the function to someone they trust.
For example, I think laypeople can preach when invited by the pastors/elders of their churches. I have no problem with pastors/elders inviting guest speakers. And what about young Johnny who just started seminary — can he preach at his home church when he visits for the holidays, even though he’s no longer a member there, let alone an elder?
And what about interim pastors? Most do not become members of the churches they temporarily serve. While interims are voted on by the congregation, it’s not typically seen as a conventional elder process or role. And does the congregation have zero authority in these matters, even if they are faced with a situation in which they no longer have someone officially serving in the office of pastor for a season?
Most people instinctively understand that the function of preaching and teaching is open to anyone the pastors/elders choose to invite. The function of preaching can be delegated by the office of pastor/elder — or even the congregation when temporarily without elders (the local church congregation is not wihtout any authority or competency, after all). I’ve only heard of a few churches that never allow non-elders to preach/teach, which is a position I respect for its consistency, even if disagree with its rationale.
If the pastors/elders of a church (or the congregation itself) can on occasion delegate the function of preaching to non-pastors/elders, even if a person is a complimentarian, that opens the door to a lot of possibilities.
Which is what this amendment is really about, in my humble opinion. This is about controlling those possibilities — outlawing “soft” and “generous” complimentarianism — while simultaneously protecting the status of those denominational leaders who want to ride the guest speaker circuit and preach where they are themselves not elders. Because, after all, they are men.
However, churches that do affirm this new amendment and the accompaning resolutions should demand consistency from their own champions. Until SBC entity heads voluntarily step off the preaching circuit at churches where they hold no authority, this amendment isn’t a principled stand. It’s a selective one.
And selective principles have a way of revealing what a movement is actually about.
My Proposed Amendment to the Amendment
My proposed amendment to the Mohler amendment to make it more consistent and thorough would read as follows: “Cooperating churches cannot affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, specifically preaching to the assembled congregation; Cooperating churches may not permit a man to preach or teach before the assembled congregation unless he holds the office of pastor/elder/overseer within that congregation.”
If your real goal is having only male pastor/elders teach and preach in gathered worship (because preaching is inseparably linked to their office), you shouldn’t allow men who aren’t elders of the particular assembled congregation to preach or teach there either. Either the office and function can be separated or it cannot.
To be consistent, more needs to be done. But as of a couple weeks ago, I’m no longer Southern Baptist, so I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I’ll also admit I’m wary of the lack of definition of terms. It’s looser than I think is needed, because I’ve seen how unspoken expectations and unwritten definitions can be weaponized.
What is meant by “preaching” and “teaching,” and what exactly constitutes an assembled congregation? If a woman quotes Scripture in worship, is she teaching and preaching? Is a small group an assembled congregation? How big does a midweek Bible study have to be before it becomes the assembling of the congregation? If a Sunday morning testimony is passionate, is a woman preaching? So many questions here . . .
My hunch is those terms will be applied in increasingly narrow ways by those who, in time, will want a new statement, amendment, or resolution to police those who are “soft” or “generous” in their interpretations. At some point, churches will have to determine when their autonomy is being challenged, undermined, or denied — and when their cooperation is genuinely a benefit to their ministry and to the Kingdom of God.
