According to Baptist Press, the 2026 Southern Baptist Convention will open with a celebration of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Bryant Sims, chairman of this year’s Committee on Order of Business, said the event will serve as “a reminder of the freedoms that have allowed churches like ours to worship openly, preach the gospel without restraint, and send missionaries around the world.”
But respectfully, that statement does not fully apply to everyone within the SBC.
For many Baptist women who feel called by God to ministry, the gospel is still preached with restraint. Their calling is questioned, their voices are limited, and now proposed constitutional amendments seek to narrow those limitations even further.
I write this not as an enemy of the SBC, but as someone who loves the church, believes deeply in the authority of Scripture, and wants to see Southern Baptists remain faithful to Christ above all else.
My concern is not whether we should submit to Scripture. We absolutely should. The question is whether we have interpreted and applied Scripture correctly in this matter.
Our own past
Southern Baptists, of all people, should understand the importance of humility when interpreting Scripture.
There was a time when many sincere believers defended slavery using biblical arguments, convinced they were preserving God’s design. We now recognize cultural assumptions influenced their interpretation of the text.
Acknowledging that history does not weaken our view of Scripture. It reminds us faithful Christians are still capable of reading tradition and culture into the Bible without realizing it.
Sign up for our weekly edition and get all our headlines in your inbox on Thursdays
I am not saying this issue is identical to slavery. I am saying our history should caution us against assuming our interpretation is beyond question.
Sincere disagreement
Several passages are often treated as if they settle this debate completely. Yet faithful evangelical scholars have disagreed on these texts for decades.
In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.” But even among conservative scholars, there is debate over whether Paul was issuing a universal prohibition or addressing a specific issue within the Ephesian church.
The Greek word often translated “exercise authority” (authentein) is rare and heavily debated in scholarly literature. The broader context of false teaching in Ephesus, including the influence of the Temple of Artemis, raises legitimate interpretive questions.
Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul instructs women to remain silent in the churches. Yet earlier in the same letter, Paul acknowledges women praying and prophesying publicly in worship (1 Corinthians 11:5). Whatever Paul meant by silence, it clearly was not absolute silence. Context matters.
The qualifications for overseers in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are also frequently cited. But these passages may describe the typical officeholder within that culture, rather than establishing gender itself as the defining qualification.
If “husband of one wife” is primarily a moral qualification about faithfulness and integrity, we should be cautious before extending it beyond what the text explicitly says. Otherwise, widowers, single men, and even Paul himself would seem excluded as well.
At the same time, Scripture contains multiple examples of women serving in significant ministry roles. Phoebe is commended as a deacon in Romans 16:1. Priscilla helped instruct Apollos, one of the early church’s most gifted teachers (Acts 18:26). Junia is referred to in language many scholars understand as identifying her among the apostles (Romans 16:7).
Peter’s sermon at Pentecost quotes Joel’s prophecy: “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17).
Reasonable Christians may disagree on how these passages fit together. But the existence of sincere disagreement among Bible-believing Christians should give us pause before declaring the matter closed beyond discussion.
Practical consequences
I also ask you to consider the practical consequences of these proposed amendments.
Many churches currently under scrutiny affirm biblical authority, preach the gospel faithfully, support the Cooperative Program, and remain committed to the Baptist Faith and Message. They differ primarily in how they understand certain ministry roles and titles.
Are we truly prepared to disfellowship churches that remain committed to the Great Commission because they arrived at a different interpretation on a difficult and debated issue?
Most importantly, what if we are wrong?
What if God truly has called faithful women into ministry leadership, and we are restricting them beyond what Scripture actually requires? What if our traditions have become more rigid than the text itself? What if future generations look back and wonder why we spoke so confidently where Scripture may have left room for humility?
Recent proponents of the Law Amendment seem determined to press forward despite its previous failure. Some have even suggested a woman teaching theology on a podcast is functioning as a pastor regardless of her title. But where does that logic end?
If a woman teaches a Sunday school class, leads a Bible study at work, disciples younger believers, explains Scripture to her husband, counsels a hurting friend, trains missionaries before a trip, or corrects false teaching—is she functioning as a pastor?
At what point does the SBC move beyond biblical conviction and into unnecessary control over the ministry life of the local church?
Southern Baptists have long championed both local church autonomy and the priesthood of the believer. Those distinctives matter here.
Jesus himself warned religious leaders about placing burdens on people that God did not require. In Mark 7:8, Jesus said, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” That warning should humble all of us.
The Great Commission was not given to men alone. Jesus commanded his followers to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19-20).
Throughout church history, women have faithfully served as missionaries, evangelists, teachers, and disciple-makers. The SBC itself would not exist in its current form without the labor and sacrifice of women serving across the mission field.
My prayer for you
The Bible was written within patriarchal cultures, but descriptive context does not automatically equal divine prescription. Today, women lead companies, serve as judges, physicians, military officers, engineers, professors, and theologians.
A woman today may earn a doctorate in theology, faithfully teach Scripture for decades, and demonstrate obvious spiritual maturity and gifting, yet still be told her calling is invalid because of one debated interpretation.
These should at least cause us to reflect carefully before narrowing the boundaries of cooperation even further.
And at a time when the SBC continues grappling with abuse reform and the failures of male leadership, it is worth asking whether continually silencing women is helping or harming the witness of the church.
As messengers, you have a responsibility not only to defend biblical truth, but also to distinguish between what Scripture clearly requires and what has been inferred through interpretation and tradition. Those are not always the same thing.
My prayer is you will approach this issue with conviction, humility, charity, and wisdom, remembering our ultimate allegiance is not to a movement, a tradition, or a political strategy, but to Jesus Christ and his word.
May the Lord grant you wisdom.
Bobbye Marrs is a member of a Texas Baptist church. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.
We seek to connect God’s story and God’s people around the world. To learn more about God’s story, click here.
Send comments and feedback to Eric Black, our editor. For comments to be published, please specify “letter to the editor.” Maximum length for publication is 300 words.