THE OPEN SURVEY REPORT - UNSURE ON SUSPENDING SIX

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:

• Their uncertainty is not primarily theological. It is procedural, linguistic, constitutional, and missional.
• They are not necessarily asking the SBC to avoid the issue. They are asking the SBC to handle the issue in a way worthy of its importance.
• The revised wording from “such as” to “specifically” is an important development. But the survey shows that many concerns remain tied to other words and concepts in the amendment, especially “function,” “preaching,” and the implications of suspending Rule 6.

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.

​