What the Survey Revealed—and the Questions Which Remain

As Southern Baptists arrived in Orlando, as I'm walking the Convention halls, I keep getting asked the same set of questions.

• What did the survey reveal?
• What did it say about support for the Truth and Unity Amendment?
• Are non-pastoral Southern Baptists seeing this the same way pastors are?
• Is the SBC really in danger of shifting from complementarian to egalitarian?
• Is this a crisis, or is it an overreaction?
• Is there a need for another constitutional amendment?
• Could this be handled another way?
• Should Standing Rule 6 be suspended?
• Are SBC entity leaders and seminary presidents calling for the amendment?
• Has the Credentials Committee officially expressed a need for it?
• And what about Black churches, language churches, immigrant churches, and churches that may not live in the middle of national SBC debates but still cooperate with Southern Baptists?

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.