Is the “Truth and Unity Amendment” Misogynistic? (Part 1)

The Southern Baptist Convention recently approved the wording of the “Truth and Unity Amendment,” which would bar women from serving as pastors or preaching to SBC congregations. Although the amendment has not yet been adopted, given that nearly 75 percent of attendees approved the wording of the proposed amendment, it’s fairly certain it will receive the requisite two-thirds approval when the vote actually occurs in 2027.

Already, other denominations and the secular culture at large are up in arms calling the vote a travesty that takes Christian culture backwards from equal rights with women to misogyny and patriarchy. Such a view misrepresents not only the rationale for the SBC amendment but also what most Christians actually believe. It’s essential that Christians be able to answer questions about gender roles in the church, whether they support the amendment or not. These are highly contentious issues that go to the heart of Christian practice within the predominate culture.

The Scriptural Reason for the Amendment

First, let’s look at what the amendment actually says and why. The proposed sixth amendment to the SBC Constitution says that a church in friendly cooperation “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.”

The amendment already existed, having been passed by voice vote in 1984, so it’s not quite as radical as it seems. The SBC for some time has opposed women pastors, but many churches have avoided this ban by giving women preachers other titles. The update was to recommend changing “such as preaching” to “specifically preaching.” The intent was to ban women preaching to an assembled congregation. In other words, women can’t even be guest preachers. It removes preaching from the ways women can serve in SBC churches.

Since many Baptist families accept women who work and serve in various ways, the reason for banning women from preaching is not because of misogyny. Rather, there was a desire to align with two verses in scripture:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church (1 Cor. 14:34-35).

Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

There is also the fact that, unlike with women apostles, deacons, teachers, and evangelists, nowhere in the Bible is there any example of a woman preaching to a congregation or serving as a bishop or elder.

For most in the SBC, it comes down to following the Bible. Those who disagree with the amendment have to provide an explanation for these verses, ignore them, or discount them. Yet if they believe in the plenary inspiration of scripture, that is, that God inspired every single word of the Bible, the verses cannot be dismissed so easily.

Theological Basis for the Amendment

It’s also important to note the theological framework behind the amendment. The SBC, and indeed most evangelicals, accept complementarianism. This is the belief that God made men and women different with unique roles based on their natures and desires. Men tend to be spiritual leaders, protecters, and builders, while women tend to be supporters, nurturers, and homemakers. They are not unequal, just different. Men are the head of the family (Eph. 5:22-33), while women raise children, keep the home, and teach obedience to the word of God (Tit. 2:3-5). They see these roles as liberating people to serve God in the way that God designed rather than restraints on their power and influence.

The opposing point of view is Christian egalitarianism, which is the belief that men and women are the same and can fulfill the same roles. This is based for example on Gal. 3:28: “There is neither … male and female, for you are all one in Christ.” They argue that women can and ought to be able to do whatever men can do in the church.

While some left-leaning Christians have embraced egalitarianism, most evangelicals accept the general framework of complementarianism. Few would say there are NO differences between the sexes in their natures, roles, or proclivities. There are some things men biologically can’t do, some that women physically can’t do, and some that each sex chooses to do when left to themselves. Saying we are all one in Christ doesn’t mean, for example, a belief in transgenderism or forcing women to serve in combat. Evangelicals generally oppose when egalitarianism is pressed to an extreme.

Other Interpretations

In other words, the disagreement with the amendment among evangelicals is not so much belief in egalitarianism as disagreeing that pastoring and preaching should be excluded from female roles within a complementarian framework. Many read 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12 and come to different conclusions than the SBC.

Some have observed that there were cultural explanations for the restrictions on women speaking in public in Corinth and Ephesus (where Timothy pastored). Because of having female priests in the temples of Aphrodite and Diana, converted women were more vocal. Others have observed that early Christian churches, like Jewish synagogues, separated men and women, and Gentiles unused to this arrangement were constantly asking their husbands to explain things. Yet 1 Tim. 2:11-12 makes clear the issue was about women teachers and usurping male authority and not just about disrupting services.

Some have argued that the issue was cultural. In Jewish practice, there were traditional restrictions on women teaching, and Paul instilled these traditions in the early church. They note that 1 Tim. 2:11-12 should be read in context with similar guidance about women not wearing a lot of make-up, jewelry, or fancy clothes (1 Tim. 2:9). No one today suggests women shouldn’t dress nice or wear make-up, so why should we restrict women preachers? Yet accepting this argument opens the door to considering other commands as merely cultural, such as those against fornication and homosexuality. It’s a slippery slope, and defending women preachers on this basis leads to confusion on which verses are moral commands, and which are merely cultural guidance.

One problem in interpreting the verses is that the modern church deviates widely from New Testament ecclesiology or church organization. For example, the terminology used isn’t the same. Evangelical churches today don’t use biblical titles but instead use the term pastor and/or deacon to refer to overseers and elders. In Eph. 4:11, pastor was listed as a spiritual ministry gift that bishops and deacons operate in. When pastor is defined only as caring for sheep without an office or a preaching responsibility, many women can and do serve in a pastoral role.

Another problem is the lack of information about early church services in the Bible, which amounts only to a handful of examples in Acts and broad guidance in the epistles. In most of these verses, there’s very little indication that preaching and teaching was the sole domain of pastors, though obviously the apostles and other pastors sometimes preached. People point to the fact that Mary Magdalene was the first to proclaim the risen Christ and that Pricilla taught Apollos about the Holy Spirit.

One additional interpretation that should be mentioned is the belief that women teachers must be under authority. This is a strict reading of 1 Cor. 14:34 and Eph. 5:22-23. All women must submit to the obedience of their husbands. Unmarried women must submit to obedience to the elders and bishop. In other words, the verse is referring to rogue preachers and suggests that women ought not be lead pastors but may pastor and preach within this framework.

Practical Reasons for Male Pastors

Supporters of the amendment also point to practical reasons why pastors should be men. For example, pastors must often undergo hardships and persecution that most men would not wish on women. They frequently live at poverty levels and in some regions face threats and violence. Pastors frequently counsel or preach to men in hazardous places, such as prisons, to men who are violent and predatory. This is not to say that all women are incapable of such service, but many would be. If women have men on staff to protect them or to do this work for them, it’s clear they cannot pastor alone.

There are also practical problems with the secular egalitarian culture. Many have complained of the degeneration of the family that has followed the feminization of our culture, and the same is true of the church. Men are consistently less likely to attend church when lessons focus on women’s issues – emotionalism, sentimentality, families, and similar themes rather than doctrine, taking action for good, protecting others, and self-sacrifice.

Finally, there are family issues involved, such as women leaving the home to become pastors or to make a living through preaching. The same goes toward women working outside the home in general. Most families today cannot survive without both parents working, but it’s never ideal. Pastors by their very nature are always on duty and always being pulled away from home to help others.

In short, there are solid scriptural, doctrinal, and practical reasons to support the Truth and Unity Amendment, though of course many disagree. While some evangelicals have provided alternative interpretations of the scriptures supporting the amendment, many either ignore the plain meaning of the text or else accept an interpretation that may lead to seeing sin as merely cultural. Most evangelicals agree with complementarianism, which provides the theological underpinning of the amendment. Nevertheless, many question the SBC’s interpretation and raise legitimate issues that the amendment doesn’t address. Next week’s article will discuss these issues.