 A weekly roundup of revitalization, replanting, and church renewal insights and news.
This Week's Big Signal The clearest signal this week is that churches are seeing signs of participation without the same evidence of deep formation or sustainable capacity. Lifeway Research's new generational analysis of its State of Discipleship work found that Gen Z churchgoers are often highly present: the average Gen Z churchgoer attends 6.2 worship services a month, and 36 percent say they have regular responsibilities at church. But the same research says Gen Z lags other generations in exercising faith, living unashamed, and agreement with key theological beliefs. That matters because renewal leaders can easily over-celebrate activity. A returning young adult, a busy volunteer, or a full calendar is not the same thing as resilient discipleship. The Unstuck Group's June 24 staffing report points to a related organizational issue: churches may respond to busyness by hiring more "doers" instead of developing leaders and volunteer teams. Participation has to become formation, and activity has to become shared ownership. One qualifier matters. Lifeway's Gen Z data is drawn from Protestant churchgoers who attend at least monthly, so it does not describe all Gen Z Americans. The Unstuck Group's staffing data comes from 239 churches connected to its network, with an average attendance around 917, so it should be read as directional rather than representative of every church. Still, the convergence is useful: renewal work needs more than attendance gains. It needs formation, leadership development, and structures that do not exhaust the same faithful few. Trends for Leaders to Notice
What's Overhyped The overhyped narrative is that renewed attendance among younger adults automatically means the discipleship crisis is easing. It may be a genuine opportunity, but it is not yet proof of deep spiritual health. Presence is a doorway. Formation is the work. Where the Greatest Opportunity Exists The greatest opportunity right now is to build churches that know how to turn presence into formation and formation into shared ministry ownership. For pastors and renewal teams, the practical questions are simple but demanding: Who is showing up more often than before? Who is serving but not being discipled? Who has evangelistic zeal but shallow doctrine? Who is doing ministry tasks that should become team-based ownership? For Southern Baptist and non-denominational churches, this creates a strong second-half-of-2026 agenda. Use Lifeway's discipleship framework or a similar local tool to assess whether people are growing in belief, practice, relationships, witness, and perseverance. Then use a staffing-and-volunteer audit to ask whether the church is building people or simply employing people to keep the machine running. Associations, networks, and consultants can help churches by pairing discipleship assessment with capacity mapping. A church may not need another program first. It may need to identify five younger adults for intentional mentoring, three overloaded staff roles that need volunteer teams, one worship or next-gen leader who needs coaching, and one clear doctrinal pathway for new and returning believers. The work of renewal is rarely dramatic in the moment. It is usually slow, honest, prayerful, and patient. But week by week, the churches that face reality, stay on mission, and take faithful next steps are the ones most likely to see lasting fruit. Sources
0 Comments
 One of the most common mistakes pastors, church leaders, and change agents make is believing that every obstacle can be overcome through enough conversation.If we explain it better.
That assumption sounds noble. It feels pastoral. It feels patient. It is also frequently wrong. Over the years I have watched pastors spend months—and sometimes years—trying to reason with people who were never actually seeking understanding. The result is usually frustration, exhaustion, stalled progress, and leadership paralysis. The challenge is that Christian leaders are called to be patient, gracious, and willing to teach. Yet Scripture also repeatedly warns us that not every person is operating from a posture of wisdom. One of the most important leadership lessons a pastor can learn is this: Not every objection is a request for understanding. Some objections are expressions of deeper realities that information alone cannot solve. Wisdom Literature Warns Us The Book of Proverbs repeatedly distinguishes between the wise and the fool. The wise person can be instructed. The fool cannot. Proverbs 9:8 says: "Do not rebuke a scoffer, or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you." The issue is not intelligence. It is posture. The wise person receives correction because truth matters more than ego. The scoffer rejects correction because self-protection matters more than truth. Proverbs 23:9 goes even further: "Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words." That verse is uncomfortable for leaders because it suggests there are moments when continued explanation is not productive. The problem is not clarity. The problem is receptivity. Perhaps the most famous passage appears in Proverbs 26:4-5: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." At first glance those verses seem contradictory. They are not. The wisdom lies in discerning which situation you are facing. Sometimes engagement merely drags you into endless circular arguments. Sometimes silence allows foolishness to go unchallenged. Wisdom is knowing the difference. Leadership requires that discernment. Jesus Did Not Answer Every Question Many pastors operate as though every concern deserves an answer. Jesus did not. At times He engaged deeply. At other times He asked questions. At other times He remained silent. When Herod questioned Him before the crucifixion, Luke records: "He made no answer." Jesus understood that some questions are genuine and some are performative. Some people seek truth. Others seek ammunition. The difference matters. One of the most exhausting mistakes leaders make is treating every critic as if they are a sincere seeker. Not all are. The Leadership Trap Leadership development literature describes this as a common failure among change leaders. When resistance emerges, leaders often assume a communication problem exists. So they increase communication. John Kotter's change research demonstrated that resistance often has little to do with information and much more to do with perceived loss. People resist because they fear losing:
What appears to be a disagreement about strategy is often a disagreement about loss. This is especially true in churches. Rarely is the conflict really about the color of the carpet, worship style, service time, facility use, governance revision, or ministry structure. Those issues are usually symbols. The deeper issue is often fear.
Until leaders recognize that reality, they will continue trying to solve emotional problems with informational solutions. That never works. Organizational Psychology Explains Why Organizational psychologists have long observed that facts rarely change minds when identity feels threatened. When people perceive that change threatens something they value deeply, they often become more entrenched rather than more open. This phenomenon is known as identity protection. The more evidence presented, the stronger the resistance may become. That explains why some church members seem to become less persuadable the longer conversations continue. The discussion is not actually about the proposal. The discussion is about preserving a worldview. The proposal merely triggered the fear. Leaders often waste tremendous energy attempting to win an argument that was never really about the argument. What Hostage Negotiators Know Perhaps surprisingly, hostage negotiators understand something many church leaders do not. People rarely move because they are defeated logically. They move because they feel understood emotionally. The first objective in negotiation is not persuasion. It is understanding. Skilled negotiators spend far more time listening than arguing.
Only then can movement occur. That principle has enormous value in church leadership. When resistance emerges, wise leaders ask:
Those questions often reveal far more than another hour of debate. However, negotiators also understand something equally important. Not everyone can be persuaded. Some individuals become psychologically committed to a position. At that point the goal shifts from persuasion to management. Church leaders must learn the same lesson. Symptoms Are Not Causes One of the most valuable insights from organizational diagnosis is the distinction between symptoms and causes. Resistance is usually a symptom. It is not the diagnosis. The visible objection may point toward deeper realities such as:
Wise leaders diagnose before prescribing. Many churches attempt to overcome resistance by increasing activity. The real need may be repentance.
The wrong diagnosis always produces the wrong treatment. Knowing When to Stop Arguing There comes a point when continued debate ceases to be productive. Paul instructed Timothy: "Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels." (2 Timothy 2:23) Notice that Paul did not say avoid all disagreement. He said avoid quarrels that produce no fruit. Some conversations generate understanding. Others simply recycle conflict. Wise leaders learn to distinguish between the two.
At some point leadership requires making a decision and moving forward. A Leadership Question Worth Asking When facing resistance, pastors should ask themselves: Am I dealing with someone who wants understanding or someone who wants control? Those are very different situations.
Failing to recognize the difference can consume years of ministry. The Final Word Patience is a Christian virtue. So is discernment. Pastors should be willing to listen carefully, answer honestly, teach faithfully, and love generously. But Scripture never calls leaders to become trapped in endless cycles of unproductive reasoning. The wisdom literature teaches that some people can be instructed and some cannot. Jesus demonstrated that not every challenge requires an answer. Paul warned against foolish controversies. Leadership research confirms that resistance is often driven by fear rather than a lack of information. Organizational psychology reminds us that identity is frequently the real issue. Negotiation experts teach us to attempt to understand motivations before seeking to persuade. Taken together, these lessons reveal an important truth:
Need a one page coaching sheet? Download one here: Diagnosing Conflict  Every leader inherits a culture before they ever shape one.
Walk into a church, business, nonprofit, or staff team and you immediately step into an existing system of values, behaviors, assumptions, loyalties, fears, habits, and power dynamics that were formed long before you arrived. Some of it is visible. Much of it is not. That’s why leadership transitions are rarely just about vision. They are about culture. New leaders often assume they are stepping into a blank slate. They aren’t. They are stepping into a living system that has already trained people how to think, respond, communicate, handle conflict, process change, and protect what matters most to them. And here’s the reality many leaders underestimate: as a new leader, you are initially an outsider to that culture. You may sense it quickly, but it will take time to fully understand it. It will take even longer to shape it. Where values differ - culture clashes occur Wherever your leadership differs from the established culture, tension will surface. That tension is not always unhealthy. In fact, it often reveals where the real leadership work begins. Every culture initially responds to change by protecting itself. Healthy cultures protect clarity, trust, accountability, humility, and mission alignment. Unhealthy cultures protect control, comfort, fear, tradition, personalities, and power structures. And the people who have acclimated to the existing culture will usually react when someone attempts reshaping it into something different. Some will celebrate the change because they’ve quietly longed for healthier leadership and healthier systems for years. Others will feel threatened because healthy culture exposes unhealthy patterns. And some will resist strongly simply because the organization has not experienced meaningful cultural change in a very long time. That resistance becomes even stronger when informal leaders—not healthy shepherds or healthy executives—have historically shaped the culture. The Strongest Voices Shape the Culture Organizations function best when healthy leaders intentionally shape culture. But when leadership is passive, unclear, fearful, aloof, overly accommodating, or unable to lead, someone else eventually fills the vacuum. The strongest voices in the system begin setting the tone. In churches, this happens constantly. A previous pastor may have occupied the office without truly shaping the culture. Over time, the culture was cast by a founding family, a dominant donor, a long-time deacon, an influential staff member, or an informal coalition of power brokers. Eventually those individuals stop seeing themselves merely as participants in the culture and begin functioning as guardians of it. You usually discover this quickly as a new leader. The culture caretaker will eventually let you know when you are violating the accepted norms of the system: “This isn’t how we do things here.” And often what they are really protecting is not theology or mission, but familiarity, influence, control, or emotional comfort. Systems naturally preserve themselves until healthy leadership intentionally guides them toward something better. New Culture Cannot Be Forced One of the great mistakes leaders make is trying to force cultural change through authority alone. That approach may create temporary compliance, but it rarely produces lasting health. In the workplace, leaders often possess formal leverage to enforce culture: employee write-ups, negative reviews, demotions, and ultimately termination. Culture in many organizations is maintained through policy enforcement and positional authority. But the community of faith is different. Pastors are not merely CEOs with sermons. Shepherding people is fundamentally different from managing employees. The call of a pastor is not to dominate, intimidate, manipulate, or demand personal allegiance because he occupies the highest seat in the organizational chart. The New Testament presents something far more challenging. Philippians 2 presents Christ as the servant King who humbled Himself. First Peter 5 instructs pastors not to domineer over those entrusted to their care, but to become examples to the flock. Ephesians 5 calls believers to be filled with and led by the Spirit. Second Timothy 3 reminds us that Scripture itself forms, corrects, trains, and shapes the people of God. That means healthy church culture is not built primarily through force, pressure, policy, or positional power. It is shaped patiently through example, truth, humility, courage, consistency, prayer, repentance, and the steady application of God’s Word over time. Certainly pastors must lead with conviction. Healthy shepherds do not avoid hard conversations, clarity, accountability, or courageous decisions. Effective Christian leadership is not driven by ego, insecurity, intimidation, or control. It increasingly reflects the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Those are not weak leadership traits. They are culture-shaping forces. Healthy Culture Must Be Built Intentionally Good culture does not happen by accident. It takes time, consistency, repetition, clarity, and intentional leadership. Leaders must consistently reinforce:
And for Christian leaders, those values cannot simply come from personality preferences, corporate leadership trends, or branding language. They must be grounded in Scripture. The Word of God does not merely shape doctrine. It shapes culture. If a church claims to be biblical but its culture is dominated by fear, gossip, manipulation, control, passivity, selfish ambition, territorialism, or constant division, something is deeply broken regardless of how polished the platform appears on Sunday morning. Healthy church culture should increasingly reflect the character of Christ. That kind of culture takes years to build. And only a short time to erode. Protect the Culture You Build Once healthy culture begins to form, leaders must protect it intentionally and fiercely. Why? Because, healthy culture is fragile. Trust is fragile. Clarity is fragile. Alignment is fragile. A team or church can spend years building healthy rhythms which can fall when unhealthy behavior, toxic attitudes, unmanaged conflict, or fear-driven leadership slowly undermine everything that was built. That is why leaders cannot apologize for healthy culture. Celebrate it. Protect it. Reinforce it. Own it. Not everyone will want to function inside a healthy culture. Some people prefer systems built around control, chaos, criticism, passivity, politics, or personal preference. Healthy accountability and healthy leadership often expose unhealthy motives, unhealthy behaviors and unhealthy people. Wise leaders understand that preserving healthy culture sometimes requires difficult conversations and strong boundaries. Sometimes the kindest thing you can do is help people honestly recognize that their values, goals, or desires no longer align with the direction of the organization, or your church. Not every person belongs in every culture. And that’s okay. Final Thought Culture is not cosmetic. It’s not simply statements on the wall. Culture is foundational. Eventually culture determines whether vision survives, whether teams flourish, whether churches remain healthy, and whether organizations accomplish the mission they were called to fulfill. So lead patiently and intentionally. Lead courageously. Lead like Christ. Shape culture. And once healthy culture begins to emerge, steward it carefully—because strong vision sitting inside unhealthy culture will eventually collapse under the weight of the environment surrounding it. A weekly roundup of revitalization, replanting, and church renewal insights and news.
This Week's Big Signal The clearest signal this week is that church renewal leaders are being asked to keep mission central while denominational and congregational attention is easily pulled toward debate, structure, and fatigue. The SBC Annual Meeting in Orlando has generated predictable attention around officer elections, constitutional questions, and public controversy, but the most renewal-relevant reports were about churches sharing the gospel, baptizing new believers, measuring discipleship, engaging volunteers, and strengthening pastors for long-term ministry. That matters because declining or plateaued churches rarely have excess attention. What leaders celebrate, measure, and discuss in the hallway often becomes the practical center of the church. Baptist Press reported more than 1,000 professions of faith through Crossover Orlando, 554 participating churches, nearly 4,000 volunteers, almost 20,000 people hearing the gospel, and a fifth straight year of SBC baptism increases. At the same time, Lifeway's State of Discipleship work shows pastors broadly affirm discipleship but often lack clear measurement and strategy. One qualifier matters. Event fruit is real, but event fruit is not the same as durable congregational renewal. The follow-through question is whether churches can turn evangelistic moments into embodied discipleship, member ownership, peacemaking, serving, and sustainable pastoral leadership. Trends for Leaders to Notice
What's Overhyped The most overhyped narrative this week is that denominational debate is the main story of church renewal. Governance, doctrinal clarity, and institutional trust matter. But local churches are not renewed by winning online arguments or endlessly rehearsing convention drama. The more important question is whether churches are becoming more evangelistic, more discipling, more prayerful, more unified, and better led. Where the Greatest Opportunity Exists The greatest opportunity right now is helping churches convert attention into mission. The week offered a sharp contrast: public debate drew headlines, while reports on evangelism, baptism, discipleship measurement, volunteer engagement, and pastoral financial health pointed toward the actual work that strengthens churches. For Southern Baptist and non-denominational leaders, the practical focus should be a simple renewal dashboard: gospel conversations, baptisms, discipleship pathway movement, volunteer engagement, new leader development, congregational peacemaking, and pastor sustainability. These are not glamorous metrics, but they tell leaders whether a church is becoming healthier or merely busier. The strongest next step is to connect event-based energy to ordinary systems. After outreach, who follows up? After baptism, who disciples? After a new member joins, where do they serve? After a pastor shows strain, who notices early? Renewal gains staying power when churches stop treating mission, discipleship, leadership, and pastoral health as separate lanes and start treating them as one ecosystem. The work of renewal is rarely dramatic in the moment. It is usually slow, honest, prayerful, and patient. But week by week, the churches that face reality, stay on mission, and take faithful next steps are the ones most likely to see lasting fruit. Sources
 One of the dangers facing many churches is one pastors and leaders are often hesitant to name plainly: congregational governance by carnal, immature, or possibly unregenerate membership.
That sentence will make some people nervous. It should. But ignoring the issue has not made our churches healthier. Baptists have historically affirmed congregationalism. That is not the problem. A gathered congregation of regenerate believers, submitted to Christ, guided by Scripture, led by qualified pastors, and marked by humility, prayer, and the fruit of the Spirit is a beautiful expression of Baptist ecclesiology. But that is not always what we are dealing with now. The 1925 Baptist Faith and Message described the church as “a congregation of baptized believers,” governed by Christ’s laws and exercising the rights and privileges given by His Word. In 1963, the language shifted: “This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.” The 2000 statement retained the phrase, saying each congregation operates “under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” (The Baptist Faith and Message) That phrase matters: under the Lordship of Christ. The danger is not democratic process. The danger is democratic process detached from discipleship, regenerate membership, biblical authority, pastoral leadership, and spiritual maturity. Herschel Hobbs, who chaired the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message committee, did not describe congregational decision-making as raw majority rule. He wrote that each member has equal rights and responsibilities, but that the will of the body should be “reached under the authority and guidance of the Spirit of Christ.” (Baptist Standard) That is a very different thing from a room full of people saying, “I think,” “I feel,” “I want,” and “I’ve been here longer.” The Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives shows that the 1963 committee files include correspondence, drafts, reviews, clippings, and related material from the committee’s work, much of it from or to Hobbs, but the publicly available inventory does not explain why this exact phrase was introduced. (sbhla.org) So we should be careful not to overclaim. But we can say this: whatever the committee intended, the phrase has often been functionally reinterpreted in local church life as unrestricted congregational democracy. And that has created a serious problem. Congregationalism Is Not the Same as Congregational Control Healthy congregationalism is not mob rule with a hymnbook. It is not every member having equal authority to redirect the church regardless of spiritual maturity, biblical understanding, actual participation, or submission to Christ.
But that is what we have in some of our weakest, sickest and most declined churches. Western individualism has not helped us. We have too often baptized the assumption that every opinion deserves equal weight simply because every person has equal worth. Those are not the same thing. Every church member has equal dignity before God. But not every opinion is equally biblical, wise, prayed over, informed, or Spirit-led.
Assuming Regenerate Church Membership The Baptist vision of congregational governance assumes a regenerate church membership. That is the key. Congregationalism works best when the congregation is made up of believers who are actually following Jesus. But when easy believism, casual membership, poor membership stewardship, neglected discipline, and bloated rolls shape the church, the system begins to break down. In too many churches, people who are uninvolved in worship, absent from service, disconnected from mission, and unsubmitted to pastoral leadership still retain full voting authority over the future of the church.
But they can show up at a business meeting and vote. That is a recipe for dysfunction. In some cases, the least spiritually mature voices end up setting the direction of the church. The people least invested in the mission can hold veto power over those most committed to it. Anyone can say "no" and nobody can say "yes." That is not congregational health. That is ecclesiological malpractice. Full Democracy Does Not Disciple People We would not lead a classroom of kindergartners by pure majority vote. We would not let middle schoolers determine the entire direction of a school by popular opinion. Why? Because maturity matters.
Yet in some churches, we apply a form of full democracy to deeply spiritual questions and then act surprised when the outcome is chaos.
These are not merely procedural questions. They are spiritual questions. They require prayer, surrender, Scripture, trust, humility, courage, and surrender to God's will. A carnal congregation will almost always choose comfort over mission. An immature congregation will usually choose preference over sacrifice. An unsubmitted congregation will often confuse control with faithfulness. Why Declining Churches Are Especially Vulnerable The churches most vulnerable to this problem are often plateaued, declining, conflicted churches with fully congregational governance. That is not a statistical claim I can prove with a national dataset. It is an observational claim from repeated work with churches in distress. When a church has declined for decades, the remaining congregation is often tired, fearful, protective, and suspicious. Many forward-thinking leaders left long ago. The church may have endured conflict, pastoral turnover, failed change efforts, and financial pressure. In that environment, full congregational governance often reinforces decline.
A church may think it has a voting problem when it actually has a discipleship problem, a membership problem, and a spiritual authority problem. Church Plants Are Telling Us Something Here is the uncomfortable reality: most new church plants are not replicating this kind of unfettered full congregationalism. That should tell us something. Church planters are not usually building systems where every routine decision requires a church vote. They are not typically handing broad directional authority to loosely connected attenders. They know mission requires clarity, speed, trust, and qualified leadership. Many long established declining churches are defending governance systems that our newest churches would never intentionally design. That does not automatically mean every older governance structure is wrong. But it does mean we should be honest enough to ask whether our structures are producing health or protecting dysfunction. I Am Not Against Congregational Participation Let me be clear:
The congregation should matter. Members should be taught, informed, discipled, heard, and meaningfully involved. But the church must also recognize that spiritual maturity, biblical qualification, and pastoral leadership matter. The congregation should affirm major directional decisions. But not every operational decision belongs on the floor of a business meeting. The congregation should hold leaders accountable. But carnal members should not be allowed to hold the mission hostage. The Big Five In many healthier churches, congregational voting is intentionally limited to major covenantal and directional matters. These are often called the Big Five:
That kind of structure does not eliminate congregationalism. It clarifies it. It allows pastors to lead.
And it prevents the church from turning every ministry decision into a referendum. The Real Issue Is Spiritual The deeper issue is not polity. It is discipleship. A congregation that lacks biblical formation, spiritual maturity, humility, prayerfulness, surrender, and the fruit of the Spirit will eventually weaponize whatever governance system it has. But full congregationalism gives that immaturity maximum reach.
The Final Word Baptist congregationalism is not the problem. Carnal congregationalism is. A healthy Baptist church is not a pure democracy. It is a covenanted body of believers operating under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, guided by Scripture, led by qualified pastors, served by faithful deacons, and participating together with humility and spiritual responsibility. The question is not simply, “Did the church vote?” The better question is, “Was the church spiritually prepared to discern and obey the will of Christ?” Because when unregenerate, immature, or carnal membership governs the church, the process may be democratic, but the outcome may still be disastrous.  As Southern Baptists arrived in Orlando, as I'm walking the Convention halls, I keep getting asked the same set of questions.
Those are fair questions. Southern Baptists deserve straight answers. The survey was launched because claims were being made about what Southern Baptists believe, what Southern Baptists fear, and what Southern Baptists want. At a moment like this, when messengers are being asked to consider another constitutional amendment, those claims should not be left to assumption, platform, or volume. Southern Baptists needed to be heard and their responses be revealed-fully. No paywalls, no spin. The survey does not settle every question. It was not a scientific random sample. It was an open grassroots survey. But it does reveal something important: the Southern Baptists who responded are not drifting left on the question of women pastors. They are overwhelmingly complementation. They are deeply conservative on the office of pastor/elder. They are not clamoring for women to preach in Sunday worship. And yet, they are also more cautious when the question shifts from theology to constitutional process. That distinction may be the most important finding in the whole survey. Among self-identified Southern Baptist respondents, 90.2% agreed that Scripture reserves the office of pastor/elder for qualified men only. That is not ambiguity. That is overwhelming conviction. Likewise, 85.7% agreed that the title “Pastor” should only refer to male individuals serving in the biblical office of pastor/elder. Nearly 80% agreed that ministry titles conferred to women, such as “Women’s Pastor” or “Children’s Pastor,” create confusion regarding pastoral office and should not be used. And 78.5% disagreed that women should be permitted to preach during Sunday worship gatherings. The exact opposite of the survey which motived me to launch this effort. This is not the profile of a convention sliding into egalitarianism. It is the profile of a convention that remains strongly complementarian, broadly confessional, and significantly concerned about confusing titles and pastoral functions. But the survey also revealed something else. Southern Baptists are not equally convinced that a new constitutional amendment is the only or wisest answer. Among self-identified Southern Baptists, 69.3% said the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is already sufficient on this matter. Only 26.9% said it is not sufficient, while 3.8% had no opinion. That matters. If nearly seven in ten Southern Baptist respondents say the Baptist Faith and Message already says enough, then the burden of proof rests on those arguing that the Constitution must say more. The issue is not whether Southern Baptists affirm male-only pastors and elders. The survey shows they do. The issue is whether this proposed constitutional mechanism is necessary, precise, and wise. Support for the Truth and Unity Amendment itself was real, but not overwhelming. Among self-identified Southern Baptists, 63.1% said the proposed amendment provides greater clarity and should be affirmed. Another 29% said no, and 7.9% were unsure. That finding mirrors the broader convention atmosphere. There is majority support for more clarity. There is not yet constitutional consensus. And that leads to Standing Rule 6. Asked whether Standing Rule 6 should be suspended to remove the ordinary requirements process for the Truth and Unity Amendment to be added to the Constitution, only 46.3% of Southern Baptist respondents said yes. Another 32.5% said no, and 21.2% were unsure. That is the warning light. Support for the amendment runs ahead of support for suspending the process. Southern Baptists may want clarity, but many are not convinced that bypassing the ordinary constitutional pathway is the right way to get it. That should make messengers pause. Standing Rule 6 exists for a reason. It sends constitutional amendments through review, reflection, and reporting before they are brought back to the messengers. It slows us down. That is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it protects us from our worst instincts. Sometimes it keeps us from constitutionalizing language before the convention has fully understood its reach. There are moments when rules need to be suspended. But the case for suspension should be stronger than impatience. If the amendment is necessary, precise, and broadly supported, then why not let it go through the normal process? If it cannot survive review, scrutiny, and two consecutive two-thirds votes, is the problem the process—or the proposal? Some will say, “We have already voted on this three times, and a majority has supported it.” That is true, but incomplete. The Law Amendment received majority support, but it failed to reach the required two-thirds threshold in Indianapolis. A similar amendment failed again in Dallas. The 2025 vote received 60.74% support, short of the two-thirds required. In ordinary SBC constitutional terms, that means Southern Baptists have not approved it. We do not get to redefine “settled” as “we voted until my side won.” That cuts both ways. Opponents should not pretend the issue has gone away. Supporters should not pretend a 60% vote is the same thing as constitutional adoption. Our rules require more than a majority because our Constitution should not be changed lightly. The question before Orlando is not simply, “Do Southern Baptists believe pastors should be men?” They do. The better question is, “Has the convention been shown that this amendment is necessary, that this wording is sufficiently clear, and that suspending the ordinary process is justified?” That is a much higher bar. There is also the question of whether this is truly a crisis. The public data do not show a convention-wide egalitarian surge. The best available public evidence suggests that churches with women in pastoral roles remain a small minority within the SBC. Even estimates offered by those concerned about the issue suggest the number of churches with women holding pastor titles is a small percentage of the convention’s total churches. The issue is real, but it is not numerically widespread. That does not mean it is unimportant. A doctrinal boundary can matter even when only a small number of churches test it. The SBC should be clear that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to qualified men. Churches should not use titles that confuse the office. The Credentials Committee should not be left to guess what messengers believe. But there is a difference between clarity and panic. If the SBC is overwhelmingly complementarian, if the Baptist Faith and Message already says the office of pastor is limited to men, if messengers have already upheld the removal of churches with women serving in pastoral office, and if the number of known cases is relatively small, then we should ask whether this is an existential crisis or a manageable governance issue. One of the key questions I keep hearing is this: Has the Credentials Committee actually asked for greater clarity? That question deserves an answer before messengers vote. If the Credentials Committee needs more guidance, let us hear that plainly. Let the committee explain what it needs, where the current language is insufficient, how many churches have been referred over this issue, how often the problem has appeared, and what kind of cases are creating difficulty. Southern Baptists should not be asked to amend the Constitution based on vague claims of need if the body doing the work has not publicly laid out the problem. How many churches have been referred to the Credentials Committee in recent years over women serving as pastors? How many were found not to be in friendly cooperation? How many cases involved senior pastors? How many involved staff titles? How many involved preaching? How many were resolved quietly? How many were based on websites, third-party lists, or outdated information? And perhaps just as importantly, should Southern Baptists assume that a constitutional amendment would eliminate the need for referrals and appeals altogether? The Credentials Committee process exists precisely because difficult cases arise and because churches have the right to appeal decisions to the messenger body. If referrals and appeals continue to come before the convention floor, is that evidence of failure, or simply evidence that our polity is functioning as designed? Before promising that a constitutional amendment will remove these debates from the annual meeting, Southern Baptists should ask whether that expectation is realistic—or even desirable. A convention that allows messengers to hear appeals and make final judgments may spend time on difficult cases, but that is part of how accountability and cooperation work in Baptist life. Those are not hostile questions. They are responsible questions. The SBC has mechanisms. The Credentials Committee can make inquiries. The Executive Committee can recommend that a church is not in friendly cooperation. Messengers can sustain or reject that recommendation. That process has already been used. Saddleback and Fern Creek were removed. Immanuel Baptist in Paducah was later removed. The convention has not shown itself powerless. So if we already have a mechanism, why is a constitutional amendment necessary? And if it is necessary, what exact problem does this amendment solve that the Baptist Faith and Message and current Credentials process cannot solve? That is where the wording matters. The original Truth and Unity language referred to a woman serving in the “office or function” of pastor/elder/overseer, “such as preaching to the assembled congregation.” After concern was raised, the language was revised from “such as” to “specifically.” That change was intended to narrow the amendment and focus the concern on preaching to the assembled congregation. But the fact that the change was needed confirms the concern. The phrase “office or function” is doing a lot of work. Some supporters say the revised wording answers those concerns. Others are not convinced. The backlash to the wording change shows that the concern is not merely about women pastors. It is about trust, interpretation, and enforcement. One side fears churches will use ambiguity to move toward egalitarian practice while claiming to remain Southern Baptist. The other side fears denominational leaders or outside pressure groups will use ambiguity to accuse churches that are confessionally complementarian but differ in ministry titles, staff structures, or worship practices. Both concerns should be taken seriously. This is where Black churches, language churches, immigrant churches, and historically connected congregations must not be treated as an afterthought. Southern Baptists need to remember that churches do not all relate to the SBC in the same way. Some churches have historical, associational, state-convention, or informal ties that do not fit neatly into the assumptions of those who live at the center of national SBC life. Some Black churches and language churches may not participate in national SBC life in the same way other churches do, even if they appear in SBC databases or cooperate through certain channels. If a constitutional amendment creates a more aggressive enforcement culture, some churches may feel they are being judged from a distance by people who do not know their congregation, their history, their structure, or their relationship to the SBC. That does not mean doctrine should bend by race, language, or church background. It means enforcement should be careful, factual, and fair. We should also be honest about institutional trust. If Southern Baptists are told that this is urgent, that the rules must be suspended, and that the Constitution must be changed immediately, they have every right to ask why. Has something changed between Dallas and Orlando? Have new cases emerged? Has the Credentials Committee said it cannot do its work? Have entity leaders broadly asked for this? Have state convention leaders? Have Black Baptist leaders? Have language-church leaders? Have associational leaders? Or is this another attempt to pass what has already failed until it finally passes? That question may sound blunt, but it is the question many are asking. Some will say, “The issue is not settled until the Constitution is clear.” Others will hear that and ask, “Or is it not settled until you get the outcome you want?” In Baptist life, process is not a nuisance. It is part of how we maintain trust. A two-thirds requirement is not a technicality. It is a guardrail. It forces constitutional changes to earn broad consensus. If we lower that bar in spirit, even while technically following the rules, we should not be surprised when people lose trust. There are benefits if the amendment passes. It could provide greater clarity. It could signal that the SBC means what the Baptist Faith and Message says. It could discourage confusing titles. It could help the Credentials Committee evaluate churches that openly affirm women serving in pastoral office or function. It could settle the matter for some. But there are also risks. It could expand the Credentials Committee’s work into a steady stream of title-policing and function-policing. It could invite churches to accuse one another based on websites, clips, screenshots, and social media outrage. It could create confusion over women who teach, speak, pray, testify, lead ministries, serve in missions, or address the gathered church in ways Southern Baptists have historically permitted. It could further strain relationships with Black churches, language churches, immigrant churches, and churches whose connection to SBC life has been more local or associational than national. It could deepen the sense that national SBC life is increasingly driven by pressure campaigns rather than cooperative mission. And if the amendment fails, there are risks there too. Supporters may conclude the SBC lacks the courage to enforce its own confession. Churches using pastor titles for women may believe the convention lacks resolve. The same debate may return year after year, draining energy from evangelism, church planting, revitalization, missions, and abuse reform. So what should Southern Baptists do? First, we should acknowledge the truth about the data. The survey does not reveal egalitarian drift. It reveals strong complementarian conviction. Second, we should tell the truth about the process. Support for the amendment is higher than support for suspending Standing Rule 6. That matters. Third, we should tell the truth about the crisis claim. The issue is real, but the evidence does not show a convention-wide egalitarian takeover. Fourth, we should ask the Credentials Committee to speak clearly. If greater clarity is needed, let the committee say so and explain why. Fifth, we should resist exaggeration. We should be presented with actual statistical evidence of how many churches are not in friendly cooperation and a clear definition of what the presenting concerns are. Inflated rhetoric may win applause, but it rarely builds trust. Sixth, we should protect both doctrinal conviction and cooperative restraint. A convention can be clear without becoming reactionary. It can discipline churches without creating a culture of suspicion. It can affirm male-only pastors and elders without treating every unresolved question as a constitutional emergency. Seventh, we should reject polarization. Southern Baptist have had a historically big tent when it comes to churches and convictions, not so large that we deny the foundations of the faith but large enough that there is light between brothers, congregations, Pastors, Seminary Profs, Presidents and Entity heads. Some to my left on an issue on which I am far right, are not liberal, moderate or progressive necessarily and I need to avoid labeling them such. Tellingly, some historic conservative pastors in the past few weeks have been labeled moderate and liberal by those overzealous to show just how conservative they are. The SBC does not need to choose between truth and unity. But it does need to recognize that naming an amendment “Truth and Unity” does not guarantee that it will produce either. The question before messengers is not whether Southern Baptists are complementarian. The survey says they are. The Baptist Faith and Message says they are. The convention’s recent actions say they are. The real question is whether this amendment, this wording, and this procedural path are the wisest way to strengthen our cooperation. Southern Baptists should not be afraid of clarity. But neither should we be careless with our Constitution. A small statistical problem can still matter doctrinally. But a serious doctrinal concern does not automatically justify an oversized institutional response. That is the balance we need in Orlando: conviction without panic, clarity without haste, and cooperation without confusion. That would serve both truth and unity.  Background and report documents can be found on bobickford.com
As Southern Baptists consider the Truth and Unity Amendment and the proposed suspension of Standing Rule 6, one of the most important groups to understand is not only those who are firmly supportive or firmly opposed. It is those who marked “Unsure.” At first glance, “unsure” may sound like theological indecision. But the survey responses tell a more careful story. Among self-identified Southern Baptist respondents who were unsure about suspending Rule 6, the hesitation does not appear to be driven primarily by rejection of complementarian doctrine. Many in this group strongly affirm that the office of pastor/elder is reserved for qualified men. Many oppose women preaching during Sunday worship gatherings. Many believe the issue matters for the identity and future of the Southern Baptist Convention. Their uncertainty lies elsewhere. They are not primarily asking, “Does this issue matter?” They are asking, “Is suspending Rule 6 the right way to handle it?” That distinction matters. The Rule 6 “Unsure” Respondents at a Glance Among self-identified Southern Baptist respondents, 304 respondents marked that they were unsure about suspending Rule 6. This subgroup is important because it does not appear to represent a casually undecided or theologically indifferent audience. The demographic and background data suggest a group that is engaged, conservative, and significantly connected to church leadership and Baptist life. Profile Marker Count / Percent Subgroup size 304 Respondents Pastor/Elder 120 / 39.5% Lay Person/Member 90 / 29.6% Volunteer Leader 50 / 16.4% Church Staff 32 / 10.5% Other role 12 / 3.9% Male 69.7% Female 30.3% Baptist Reformed/Calvinistic 58.9% theological framework. Primary concern: biblical fidelity. 71.4% Largest age bloc: 35-44 33.2% Southeast/South region combined 66.1% This matters for interpretation. The “Unsure” group is not primarily composed of respondents who are detached from SBC life. Nearly four in ten are pastors or elders. Nearly three in ten are lay members. A meaningful share are volunteer leaders or church staff. Their responses represent people who are close enough to church life to understand both doctrinal concerns and practical consequences. Their leading concern is also telling: biblical fidelity. That means their hesitation about suspending Rule 6 should not be quickly dismissed as doctrinal softness. For many, the hesitation is not about whether Scripture matters. It is about how Southern Baptists should handle Scripture, confession, polity, and constitutional language together. An Important Update to the Amendment Language A recent update to the proposed wording is important. Dr. Albert Mohler has indicated his desire to revise the amendment by removing the words “such as” and replacing them with “specifically.” The updated language would read: “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.” That change matters because some respondents were concerned that “such as” could create an open-ended list of prohibited activities. Replacing it with “specifically” appears intended to narrow the meaning and clarify that the amendment is aimed at women preaching to the assembled congregation as an expression of pastoral function. As of mid-to-late day June 3, 2026 some of the original amendment supporters feel a capulation has taken place and are expressing their frustration with the change and with Mohler. The survey comments (closed on June 2, 2026) suggest that the concerns among unsure respondents were not only limited to the now changed phrase “such as.” Even with the revised wording, several other terms remain important to them: office, function, pastor, elder, overseer, preaching, assembled congregation, affirm, appoint, and endorse. The updated language may address one layer of ambiguity, but it does not remove all of the concerns reflected in the survey. 1. The Unsure Group Is More Convictional Than Confused One of the clearest findings is that respondents unsure about suspending Rule 6 are not generally unsure about the underlying theological question. Many affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, believe the pastoral office is limited to men as qualified by Scripture, and express concern about confusion surrounding pastoral titles and pastoral functions. This means it would be a mistake to interpret the “Unsure” group as simply drifting away from historic Southern Baptist conviction. Many are not looking for theological compromise. They are looking for procedural wisdom, careful language, and confidence that the Convention is not moving too quickly. Their posture is closer to this: “We agree the issue is important. We are not yet convinced that suspending the rules is necessary, wise, or safe.” That is not indifference. It is caution. One respondent captured this tension clearly: “I’m against female pastors but believe the process in place is able to handle these issues.” Another wrote: “I believe the BFM 2000 is pretty clear.” These comments show that, for some unsure respondents, the question is not whether Southern Baptists have a doctrinal standard. The question is whether the Convention needs to suspend its own process in order to add another constitutional standard immediately. 2. The Central Concern Is Process The strongest theme among unsure respondents is concern about process. Many Southern Baptists understand that constitutional changes should not be handled lightly. Standing Rule 6 exists to prevent the Convention from changing its governing documents too quickly, too emotionally, or without sufficient review. For those unsure about suspension, the process itself is not merely a bureaucratic inconvenience. It is a safeguard. Some respondents are not necessarily opposed to the amendment’s theological concern. They are uneasy about bypassing the normal process. That concern appears in comments like this: “Do I think this is a helpful amendment? Yes. Would I vote to affirm the amendment and to suspend Rule 6? Yes. However, I do worry about the repercussions of merely suspending rules for future issues. Seems a dangerous precedent...” Even though this respondent leans supportive, the concern is unmistakable: what the Convention does now may become a precedent later. Others expressed a similar procedural instinct more directly: “The rule seems unclear generally…I’m in favor of procedures, but this one has some issues regardless of its use in this case.” The deeper concern is that process, once weakened, may not be easily recovered. If the Convention suspends its rules for this matter, future messengers may learn that urgency is enough to bypass normal constitutional procedure. That is not a small concern in Baptist life. Southern Baptists are not governed by bishops, boards, or denominational executives. They cooperate through messengers, churches, confessions, committees, constitutions, and rules. Process is not a side issue. It is part of how cooperation is maintained. 3. Many Believe the Wording Still Needs Work Another major theme is concern over language. The proposed change from “such as” to “specifically” may reduce one concern. But the survey comments show that uncertainty is also attached to other words in the amendment. Several unsure respondents expressed concern about the language of function, especially when connected to pastor/elder/overseer. One respondent wrote: “The concept of ‘function’ and ‘such as’ does not give enough clarity to women who want to serve faithfully.” The “such as” portion may be revised, but the concern about function remains. Another respondent stated: “I mentioned that I don’t think the amendment is clear enough. I think when it says ‘function’ in the role of pastor that is vague and will cause more confusion.” This is one of the central concerns in the unsure group. The word “function” is doing significant work. But respondents are asking what exactly it includes and excludes. Does “function” mean preaching to the gathered congregation? Does it mean exercising elder authority? Does it mean teaching mixed adults? Does it include pastoral care? Does it include shepherding language? Does it include ministry direction? Does it include a woman speaking about a sermon in a church-sponsored setting? Does it include the use of titles? Does it include actions by the church that “affirm,” “appoint,” or “endorse” even when no formal office is given? One respondent put the question plainly: “What are you asking is an important matter? Is it titles or women functioning as pastors?” That question gets to the heart of the uncertainty. Respondents are trying to understand whether the amendment is addressing office, title, preaching, function, endorsement, or some combination of all of these. 4. “Function” Remains the Word That Carries the Most Concern Even with the proposed change to “specifically,” the word function remains one of the most important unresolved concerns. Southern Baptists broadly understand the office of pastor/elder/overseer as limited to qualified men. But “function” can be more difficult to define. One respondent wrote: “Pastors have many functions shared by all believers like discipleship, hospitality, etc.” That comment identifies a real interpretive problem. Some functions commonly associated with pastors are not exclusive to pastors. Pastors teach, but not only pastors teach. Pastors disciple, but all believers are called to make disciples. Pastors counsel, but mature believers also counsel. Pastors exhort, but the congregation exhorts one another. Pastors show hospitality, but hospitality is a Christian virtue for the whole church. If “function” is narrowly defined as preaching to the assembled congregation in a pastoral capacity, the amendment may be more limited. But if “function” is interpreted broadly, it could create uncertainty about women serving faithfully in ministries Southern Baptists have historically affirmed. Another respondent wrote: “If we are going to include function of pastor and not just title then, as silly as it is, we must clearly define what it means to ‘function’ as a pastor.” That comment does not reject the theological premise. It asks for definition before constitutional action. Another respondent was more specific: “My issue with the amendment is the ‘preaching’ language.” The updated version still includes preaching. It now says “specifically preaching to the assembled congregation.” That may narrow the phrase, but questions remain: What constitutes preaching? What counts as the assembled congregation? Is this only the Lord’s Day worship gathering? Does it include conferences, chapel services, youth gatherings, live streamed events, church-sponsored podcasts, midweek services, or special meetings? Those are not hypothetical questions for many respondents. They are the kind of questions that arise once constitutional language becomes a basis for credentialing decisions. 5. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Still Matters A significant theme among unsure respondents is confidence that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 already provides the SBC’s doctrinal center. The BF&M 2000 states that the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. For many Southern Baptists, that language is already clear. One respondent wrote: “I believe the BFM 2000 is pretty clear.” Another said: “I do believe a study group to give clarity for the credentials committee would be helpful.” That second comment is especially important. It does not suggest doing nothing. It suggests that the issue may be better addressed through study, guidance, and credentialing clarity rather than immediate constitutional action through suspended rules. For these respondents, the question may be: Is the problem the confession, or is the problem application? If the problem is that churches are not being held accountable to the BF&M, then some respondents appear to believe the answer may be clearer application through existing processes. If the problem is that the BF&M is insufficient, then constitutional amendment becomes a different kind of solution. The “Unsure” group appears divided on that point, but many of their comments show they are not convinced that suspending Rule 6 is necessary in order to achieve doctrinal faithfulness. 6. There Is Concern for Women Serving Faithfully Within Biblical Boundaries Another important theme among unsure respondents is concern that broad or unclear language may unintentionally discourage faithful women from serving in biblically appropriate ways. This is not the same thing as support for women serving as pastors. Many of these respondents affirm male-only pastors and elders. Their concern is that unclear constitutional language could make faithful women feel suspect for serving in ways the church has historically encouraged. One respondent wrote: “The concept of ‘function’ does not give enough clarity to women who want to serve faithfully.” This concern remains relevant even though “such as” shifts to “specifically,” because the larger question about “function” remains. Southern Baptists have long relied on women in missions, discipleship, teaching children, teaching women, evangelism, hospitality, mercy ministry, counseling, administration, prayer, theological education, and local church service. Many complementarian Southern Baptists want to preserve those ministries while maintaining a male-only pastor/elder office. The concern is that constitutional language should be clear enough to protect both convictions: the male-only pastoral office and the honorable ministry of women within biblical boundaries. A Convention can say what women may not do while also being clear about what women should be encouraged to do. 7. Some Are Weary of SBC Conflict A final theme is fatigue. Some unsure respondents are tired of seeing the SBC defined by controversy. They believe doctrine matters, but they also worry about public witness, mission, unity, and the spirit in which debates are conducted. One respondent wrote: “The SBC has become a group that is known for standing AGAINST things, instead of standing FOR anything.” Another said: “If we focused more on spreading the Gospel and less on divisive doctrines like these, we may not have so many people turning away from Christ.” Another put it even more simply: “I am so tired of the sbc arguing all the time.” And another respondent expressed concern in stronger institutional terms: “This discussion is shameful and embarrassing. Local church autonomy is being trampled...” These comments reveal a pastoral and missional concern. For some respondents, the issue is not only what the SBC decides but how the SBC conducts itself while deciding. They are concerned that the Convention may become known for procedural fights, platform conflict, and public controversy more than cooperative mission. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the sentiment is real and should not be dismissed. The Real Message Beneath the “Unsure” Responses The unsure respondents reveal something important about the present SBC moment. Southern Baptists broadly want biblical conviction. Many also want careful process. They do not want doctrinal ambiguity, but neither do they want constitutional carelessness. They want clarity, but not confusion. They want faithfulness, but not unnecessary division. They want the Convention to be honest about real concerns without rushing language that may create new ones. That combination should be taken seriously. The “Unsure” group is not best understood as apathetic. Many are engaged, thoughtful, and convictional. Their comments suggest they are weighing not merely the amendment’s intention, but its wording, process, precedent, and long-term consequences. They are asking whether this is the right language, at the right time, through the right process, with enough clarity to help rather than harm cooperation. Final Word The most important takeaway from the unsure group is this:
Southern Baptists should pay careful attention to these respondents. They may represent a significant portion of messengers who affirm the doctrine, respect the BF&M, value the Convention’s process, and still hesitate to suspend the rules. The “Unsure” responses ultimately reveal a Convention trying to balance conviction and cooperation, clarity and caution, doctrine and process. That balance is difficult, but it is not weakness. It may be exactly the kind of prudence Southern Baptists need in a moment when words, rules, and trust all matter.  Now Available:The SBC Women in Ministry Survey Report
For the past several days, I have been asking Southern Baptists and others connected to Baptist life to respond to an open survey regarding women in ministry, pastoral titles, preaching, teaching, church cooperation, and the upcoming SBC Annual Meeting. I launched this survey because I believed then, and still believe now, that Southern Baptists need more than assumptions, anecdotes, social media reactions, and carefully selected data points when we are making decisions that affect churches, cooperation, trust, and the future of our convention. We need to hear from actual Southern Baptists. We need to see the data. This survey was not created to settle every question. It was not designed to inflame an already tense conversation. It was not a scientific, convention-wide poll with a randomized sample. It was an open, voluntary, grassroots survey built to gather responses from pastors, church staff members, volunteer leaders, laypeople, and others who wanted to speak directly to these questions. The survey data was pulled at 5:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. At that time, there were 1,398 total responses. (As this post was being created we crossed over the 1400 mark as you will see reflected in the slides) Because this conversation concerns what Southern Baptists believe and how Southern Baptist churches cooperate, the analysis makes an important distinction. The full respondent pool is reported demographically, but the substantive analysis focuses only on those who self-identified as Southern Baptist. That means the major findings, written-comment analysis, and interpretive summaries are based on SBC voices, not on the broader respondent pool. Two reports are now available. The first is the full survey analysis. It looks at the total response set, identifies the Southern Baptist respondent group, and analyzes the major questions related to the male-only pastor/elder office, the use of the title “pastor,” women preaching in Sunday worship gatherings, women teaching mixed-gender groups outside Sunday worship, church cooperation, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, the Truth & Unity Amendment, and the proposed suspension of Standing Rule 6. VIEW FULL REPORT: hbit.ly/4x5rmsh The second is a focused subgroup report. It looks only at self-identified Southern Baptists who are not pastors/elders and not church staff. In other words, it gives special attention to lay members, volunteer leaders, and others who are part of Southern Baptist churches but are not serving in formal pastoral or staff roles. VIEW SUBGROUP REPORT: bit.ly/4dTddpi That subgroup matters. One concern in denominational conversations is that the loudest voices are often platformed leaders, pastors, institutional figures, or online commentators. Those voices matter, but they are not the only voices. The non-pastor/non-staff report helps us hear from engaged Southern Baptists who are closer to the pew than the platform. Several things are clear from the reports.
I have intentionally kept the commentary light in these reports. The goal is not to tell readers what they must conclude. The goal is to put the data in front of people so they can read it, weigh it, question it, and draw their own conclusions. That is why the reports and data are being made available publicly. In a moment of importance for the Southern Baptist Convention, statements about what Southern Baptists believe should not be locked behind paywalls. Data that may influence messengers, churches, pastors, and denominational decisions should be open to review. For-profit companies are free to do what they want with their own research, but when broad claims are made about Southern Baptists during a consequential denominational debate, the underlying data should be available for examination. (view the spreadsheet) https://bit.ly/4o8SNxs (view the slide deck) https://canva.link/j1vjirih7c6rczj Transparency matters. Open questions matter. Public analysis matters. And Southern Baptists should be able to evaluate claims about Southern Baptists without having to pay for access to the information. These reports are not perfect. No open survey is. The respondent pool is voluntary, engaged, and not a randomized sample of every Southern Baptist church member. The data should be read honestly, carefully, and within its limitations. But it is real data. It is public data. It is available for review. And it gives us a meaningful window into how a large group of self-identified Southern Baptists responded to some of the very questions now before the Convention. I welcome others to download the data, run their own analysis, challenge mine, and offer additional insight. That is how serious work should be done. The goal here is simple: more light, less heat. Southern Baptists deserve clarity, honesty, and transparency as we walk into important conversations and decisions together. May we think clearly, speak truthfully, act wisely, and keep the mission before us. |
Archives
June 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed