Dr. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, announced May 18, 2026, that he will propose a motion at the SBC’s Annual Meeting in Orlando (June 9–10) for an amendment to the SBC constitution regarding women and pastoral ministry. His proposed amendment 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.”
To be clear, our confession of faith, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 already says in Article VI:
“Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. 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” (emphasis mine).
Meaning of ‘or’
This proposed amendment goes beyond the BFM2000, as well as the previously submitted and declined Law/Sanchez Amendment which prohibited women from serving as “pastors of any kind,” and moves the admonition regarding male-only pastors from just the more clearly defined “office” into a more broadly described sphere of “function.” The word “or” here means that the proposed amendment would prohibit women from holding either the office of pastor or engaging in any kind of pastoral function in the life of the church, without defining clearly what those functions are.
That is a novel approach and introduces a new perspective that Southern Baptists have not previously affirmed or adequately contemplated. Previously, we had discussed pastoral “office.” This proposed change provides support from an official provision for those who want to investigate churches who might have women engaging in ministerial function related to pastoral activity, even if they are not actually pastors. It also, of course, provides authorization to remove those churches if they are found guilty of allowing women to engage in undefined pastoral function, even if they are not pastors.
‘Illustrative’ example
Dr. Mohler provides one example for what function means by saying, “such as preaching to the assembled congregation.” The use of “such as” is not exhaustive, however, but rather, illustrative. The grammar here does not mean that forbidden pastoral functions are limited to preaching only. Rather, it means that preaching is just one example among many. He proved that by saying on May 15th that a female church staff member engaging in a podcast discussion with male pastoral staff regarding a recent sermon could be an example of pastoral function and would thus, be questionable. Dr. Mohler says function and office are essentially equivalent by saying, “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.”
This statement leads us to ask the question: Is discussing scripture and a sermon preached by the male pastor in line with pastoral function? And then, according to Dr. Mohler, equivalent to pastoral office? If so, what other functions might be prohibited to women according to this proposed amendment?
‘Function’ reference
Southern Baptists believe that the role of pastor/elder biblically is reserved for men. We believe that the overall thrust in scripture is for male leadership in the church in teaching and leadership roles. That said, we also see in the scriptures a wide array of women involved deeply in ministry, using their spiritual gifts, and being vital to the local church and to the mission of God. The concern with this proposed SBC constitution amendment is not whether women should serve as pastors. Rather, the concern is whether the amendment’s prohibitive language unnecessarily expands beyond the pastoral office itself into a broad and undefined expression of “function” that could potentially lead to unnecessary and unbiblical limitations for women engaging ministerially in the local church and in local and global mission.
To counter this concern about creeping prohibitions regarding “function” beyond office, defenders of Dr. Mohler’s proposed amendment have assured Southern Baptists the amendment only concerns preaching to the gathered congregation because we have a consensus around that activity being a pastoral function reserved for men. But, again, the language itself does not say that. The phrase “such as preaching to the assembled congregation” gives an example of pastoral function rather than defining its limits. Grammatically and legally, “such as” expands rather than restricts, is illustrative rather than exhaustive.
‘Not sufficient’
This matters because information in the official documents should be judged by what it actually says, not by verbal explanations and calls for trust surrounding the information. Admissions that the language of the amendment is expansive followed by assurances it won’t be used that way are not sufficient in this setting. Legal and constitutional language outlives the people currently explaining it. Future Credentials Committees and Southern Baptists will interpret the text itself, and broad language invites broad application.
Under a broad functional interpretation, ordinary forms of ministry could eventually come under suspicion: women leading Bible studies, giving devotional observations from scripture to volunteer teams, counseling church members, directing ministry programs, training and leading mixed-gender volunteers in ministries like Vacation Bible School, speaking in ministry settings outside gathered worship, or serving as missionaries internationally, as Lottie Moon did. Even if today’s leaders do not intend such outcomes, the language leaves open the possibility for expansion if that is where future advocates for even more restricted roles for women in the church want to go.
Alternative option to consider
The issue, therefore, is not whether the SBC has the right to define its doctrinal boundaries. Of course it does. The issue is whether those boundaries should be defined clearly and narrowly or through broad language capable of constant reinterpretation and expansion. Perhaps a better solution would be to say,
“Southern Baptists believe that a cooperating church affirms that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to biblically qualified men and is defined by ordination and biblically described function.”
That keeps the focus on the office and uses “function” to describe the office, rather than allowing further prohibitions to work their way through the church beyond clearly defined and articulated pastoral positions.
‘Could choke life out of churches’
This article is not a call for women to be allowed to serve as pastors in SBC churches. Rather, it is a call for protection for women from potentially expansive constitutional language that could be interpreted as restricting the ministry of women in ways that could choke the life out of our churches, cause further division, put women and church leaders under constant suspicion, and unbiblically limit women from engaging in their God-given callings.
Finally, this article is also written to remind us that this proposed amendment calls for the removal of any church that disagrees with it. And, it creates the real possibility that future reinterpretation could also include future exclusion. The constitution and bylaws are legally binding. Such power requires preciseness and consensus. This proposed amendment fails that test and offers us neither.
EDITOR’S NOTE — This story was written by Alan Cross, who served as a Southern Baptist pastor and minister in Alabama for many years. He now serves as pastor of Petaluma Valley Baptist Church in Petaluma, California.
Share with others: