The SBC Debate That Shouldn’t Matter All That Much to Me — But Does

What does a female Anglican deacon in Sydney, Australia, have to do with a debate about male pastors in American Southern Baptist churches?

On one hand, not a lot

Sure, I have more than a passing interest in denominational polity. I may be more familiar with the language of synods and ordinances than I am with conventions and messengers, but I generally find the workings of denominational governance at least somewhat interesting.

But admittedly, I know little about the particular ins and outs of Southern Baptist governance. More to the point, as an Anglican deacon who lives and worships in Sydney, Australia, I am not directly impacted by them.

In that sense, I have little skin in this particular game.

But in another sense, I have a lot at stake within it.

Let me explain.

At present, an important discussion is taking place among members of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). It’s not a new discussion. Indeed, it is one that has flooded my social media feeds for a few weeks around this time of year for the last few years. The discussion is about who can or can’t be called or function (or think of themselves?) as a “pastor”. It’s also about how that relates to who can or can’t be considered in cooperation with the SBC.

Now, as I said above, the SBC legislative discussion and eventual decision on this matter will have close to zero impact on the denominational convictions and practices of my “tribe” here in the Sydney Anglican diocese.

And yet, as I explain in the post below, that discussion and eventual decision does indeed have a significant impact on my own life and service as a complementarian woman in vocational evangelical ministry more broadly.

As a Sydney Anglican, the legislative decisions of the SBC are of little effect or particular interest to me.

But as a complementarian woman in ministry, they are of very great effect and much interest to me.

Every time this debate has come up before the annual SBC meeting, I’ve been reminded of that. But this year, I’ve become aware of just how true it is in ways even I hadn’t appreciated until now.

And so, my prayerful hope for this post (and the next) is to provide a female complementarian perspective, not so much on the in-principle question of “Can women be pastors?” but on some of the implications of how that question is being fielded within the SBC context right now. Implications that, it seems to me, currently lie beyond the sightlines of 99% of the people currently engaged in this debate—mainly male SBC pastors and complementarian gatekeepers.

I’m not claiming my perspective is a better perspective. I’m not claiming it is a more important perspective. And I’m not claiming it is a perspective that represents all complementarian women out there, let alone all those in the SBC. But ironically, it’s because I’m outside the SBC system, that I feel free and able to offer it.

I offer it in good faith, as a sister in Christ and fellow-worker of the gospel and as someone who is passionate about all members playing their part in building up and strengthening the body.

In Case You Are New Here…

Let me start by clarifying what those familiar with my work already know.

• I’m complementarian in my theological convictions and ministry practice. I subscribe to the theological affirmations of the Danvers Statement.

• I uphold male eldership/oversight within the church. In my ecclesial context, this means I do not support the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate.

• I do not and have never preached to the assembled body gathered as the church on Sundays. I believe this runs counter to the Bible’s ecclesiological and anthropological teaching.

• I am an enthusiastic supporter, endorser and promoter of women playing their God-given privilege and responsibility of contributing to the building up of the body, alongside men, within a thoughtful, faithful and fruitful complementarian framework.

(If you wish to read a more comprehensive outline, definition and defense of my complementarian position, you’ll find that in chapter 7 of this new book: ‘Complementarianism: A Continuum of Perspectives in Men and Women in the Church’.)

The Matter in Main

As I mentioned above, my intention in this post is not to debate the in-principle question of whether women may be “pastors”.

In fact, it’s not one that I feel particularly invested in at all, because, in my Sydney Anglican context, we typically use the language of “minister” (from the word “servant”) to refer to those who serve on a church ministry leadership team. We usually talk about senior ministers (or “rectors” if we’re in a particularly Anglican mood that day), assistant ministers, kids’ ministers, women’s ministers, worship ministers, etc. In our circles, that terminology isn’t exclusive or comprehensive. But it is used far, far more often than the word “pastor”. This means that many of us down here are a bit bewildered by the passion of this particular debate amongst some of our US friends.

And so, as I was saying, my intention is not to weigh in on the matter in principle. Instead, I want to offer a particular line of sight into some unacknowledged implications of how the debate is being had, and especially the debate surrounding Al Mohler’s Truth and Unity amendment as found below:

“…that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in June 2026 amend the Constitution of the SBC to add an enumerated 6th item, under Article 3, Paragraph 1, defining composition. This new language would make clear that a cooperating Southern Baptist church:

‘6. Does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, such as preaching to the assembled congregation.’”

Paying Attention to The Details

I’ve sat through enough Anglican synods to know how important it is to pay attention to the details. And so, I want to draw your attention to some key words in the proposed amendment:

• “affirm, appoint or endorse” (i.e., this is a comprehensive denouncement intended to not only prohibit a cooperating church from appointing a female pastor but also from endorsing or affirming a woman in that role, which would seem to apply to women in ministry outside the SBC context)

• “a woman serving in the office or function” (i.e., this is not just about title/office-holding but also about ministry roles, responsibilities, behaviours)

• “such as preaching to the assembled congregation” (i.e., ‘such as’ implies that preaching is just one example of a pastor’s function. There are others, but they have not been named)

Now, I understand the intention of the proposed amendment, including those key words/phrases. I get the proposed legislative effect. I understand why preaching is specifically mentioned as part of that proposed effect. And again (have I repeated this enough yet?), I’m not making a comment on what I think about the amendment in principle.

But for me, and many others, those keywords/phrases raise some important questions about the possible effects of the amendment—both immediately and in future. For example:

• What other functions might be included in that “such as” that women are not to engage in? Why is only one listed?

• Who decides what those functions are or are not? How does or could that affect the application of the legislation?

• What constitutes endorsing or affirming? For example, could it implicate an external women’s ministry event whose speaking lineup includes a female with the title “woman’s pastor”? Or a book that woman wrote? Or a podcast she was on? What are the extents and limits of endorsing or affirming?

I’m not the first to raise these questions. Social media has been abuzz with them.

And in response, numerous people who are strongly in favour of the amendment have sought to address them (see examples here and here). In essence, their response has been:

“There is no intention for this amendment to become a license to place more and more restrictions on women in SBC churches. Nobody has the appetite for that. And if they did, then there are already mechanisms by which they could pursue it. It’s not going to happen. So stop the fear mongering and pass the amendment so that we can have the clarity we need”.

I don’t know nearly enough about the ins and outs of the SBC to confidently evaluate the accuracy of that kind of response. Though I will say this: over the last five years, I’ve been watching SBC-led complementarianism—especially as it is gatekept by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW)—become increasingly fixated, more restrictive, and ever more negatively framed.

I was listening to one of their podcasts recently, in which some of their Presbyterian guests commented on how committed they were (as Presbyterian complementarians) to promoting the active and appropriate complementarian ministry of women in their churches. The CBMW host nodded along enthusiastically and even echoed the sentiment aloud. And all I could think as I listened was, “Well, that’s news to me. Because these days, the only thing I seem to ever hear you guys talking about along those lines is what women can’t do in ministry, shouldn’t do in ministry, and are doing in ministry that they shouldn’t be doing in ministry.” I’m sure that they would object to that characterisation, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate. Especially since (according to internet archives) the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has not itself employed a female member on its staff team for nearly a decade.

I have long feared that the trajectory of SBC-coded complementarianism (or at least that which is most public and vocal) has been heading in a more restrictive direction, and I don’t anticipate that trajectory will suddenly be arrested the moment the SBC legislates against women calling themselves pastors and preaching on Sundays. And so, no, I don’t have much personal confidence in the “nothing to see here” crowd’s reassurance. But again, I’m not familiar enough with the ins and outs of the SBC more broadly to know if my instinct will be proven justified or unnecessarily cynical in the long run.

A Case Study in Inconsistency

But here is something I do know.

I know that only days after Dr Mohler announced his proposed amendment aimed at stopping cooperating Southern Baptist churches from acting “to affirm, appoint ot endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer” he publicly said that a female member of a church ministry team who contributes to a collaborative podcast in which the pastor, she and other staff members discuss together questions arising from the Sunday sermon is, in his opinion, functioning as a pastor:

I think there’s one error in the question where she says she’s not a pastor by role or by title. If she is functioning as a pastor, then she is assuming the role of a pastor and I think that’s what’s implied here. And yes, I do see that as a problem.

Now I’ve explained here and here why I disagree with that statement (and why I would have hoped Dr Mohler would have been willing and able to parse the particular question he was responding to more perceptively).

But in the end, it doesn’t matter what I think. It matters what Dr Mohler thinks. After all, he is the one proposing an amendment that would prohibit Southern Baptist churches from affirming or appointing or endorsing a woman who is functioning as a pastor, And, he clearly believes this woman is.

A few days later, another podcast host asked Dr Mohler about how this specific example interacted with his proposed amendment. Here is how Dr Mohler replied:

“I want you to notice that I did not ask for the identification of that church and I did not seek to find anything that could be used in terms of the SBC. I was asked for advisement. I think that’s where such an issue should land, period, and remain. I don’t know the name of the church, I don’t have a clue about the identity of the church. If I were doctrinally concerned about the SBC, I would have followed up on it.”

My question is… why?

Why is this a matter only for advisement?
Why should this be where such an issue lands and remains?
Why is he not doctrinally concerned about it?
Why is he not interested in following up on it?

The content of Dr Mohler’s proposed amendment is clear. He is committed to seeing legislation passed that would prohibit cooperating churches from appointing a woman to their team to function as a pastor. And he believes that this unnamed SBC woman in this unnamed SBC church is not only functioning as a pastor but is assuming the role of a pastor.

But apparently, he’s not overly bothered by it.

This is, of course, utterly inconsistent. It is also precisely why many people are cynical about any insistence that SBC members can rest assured that there is no danger of any future overzealous application of this legislation.

One man’s overzealousness in this moment is another man’s straightforward application of it in the next.

One man’s lack of appetite for consistent application today is another (or indeed even the same) man’s ferocious hunger for precisely that tomorrow.

---

The question of the extent to which Dr Mohler’s amendment, if passed, would be consistently enforced—both now and in the future—is a very important one.

But it’s not a hidden one. Indeed, it’s very much in the line of sight of many (of the men) engaging in this discussion.

But what isn’t being seen or acknowledged is the impact of this question on the confidence, the credibility and the courage of complementarian women on the ground.

What doesn’t even appear to be on the radar of the most vocal and vociferous proponents of the amendment designed to usher in unprecedented complementarian clarity is the cost that this kind of inconsistency, unpredictability, and lack of clarity exacts on actual women in ministry in Southern Baptist and other churches.

And so that’s what I want to bring to light in my next post. Subscribe for free below to ensure it lands in your inbox.