Truth and Unity Amendment
–
On this episode, @DennyBurk, @JonathanESwan, and @colinsmo discuss objections to the amendment Dr. @albertmohler has announced he plans to put forward at next month's denominational meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. pic.twitter.com/2xuW6EsxWd

— CBMW (@CBMWorg) May 27, 2026

As I have watched preliminary debate online, I have seen opponents try to sow a lot of confusion about what this amendment actually does. For example, former Baptist and current egalitarian Mike Bird accuses Mohler of “theological duplicity” and argues that “the proposed amendment looks like a move designed specifically to associate maleness with power and women with submission to male power.” Bird says, “I don’t know whether I’m reading about Mohler’s ‘conservative resurgence’ or Mao’s ‘cultural revolution.’”

Chairman Mao presided over the deaths of about 1.6 million people during the Communist Cultural Revolution in China. He is one of the great villains of history—which is why this comparison is unhinged and unserious.

But there is another reason that Bird’s argument hits wide of the mark. This kind of analysis reduces human relationships to power differentials and thereby draws more from critical theory than from Holy Scripture. Indeed, it confuses some basic concepts that are key to this discussion. Until this confusion is cleared away, the different sides are going to be talking past one another.

Defining Key Terms

So I want to propose some definitions that I hope will lead to greater clarity for all sides. To do that, we need to define some key terms: power, authority, jurisdiction, and office. None of what I am about to say is original to me. Although I write about these concepts in my forthcoming book on complementarianism, I am following rather closely the work of Jonathan Leeman, which I highly recommend to you. Now to the definitions.

Power refers to the strength, ability, or capacity to do something. An author has the ability to write. A seamstress has the ability to create or repair clothing. A bodybuilder has the ability to lift heavy weights. In other words, power refers to the abilities or capacities that we have to do certain things.

But just because someone has the power or ability to do something, does not mean that they always have the right to do it. An author may have the ability to write, but he does not have the right to come into your home and draw pictures on the walls. A seamstress may have the ability to sew, but she doesn’t have the right to sew your pant legs together. A bodybuilder has the ability to lift heavy weights, but he doesn’t have the right to manhandle you and pick you up off the ground.

Authority is the right to exercise power. Or as Jonathan Leeman puts it, it’s “the moral right or license to make decisions with that power. It is an authorization to do something. What’s more, to have authority, someone must authorize you to do whatever they want you to do” (Leeman, Authority, 24-25). There must be someone who grants the right to exercise power towards a certain end—someone who confers authority.

My son is nearly 16 years old, and he is looking more and more like a man every day. He has gotten really strong. He has the ability to overpower people weaker than him, put handcuffs on them, and to arrest them. But he doesn’t have the right to use his power in that way. However, a police officer may have similar power to my son’s, but he also has been granted authority to do so. The state has given police officers the right to use force to restrain lawbreakers and arrest them.

Having power is not by itself the right to use that power. You must be authorized to use your power toward a certain end. Once you have been authorized, then you have authority.

Jurisdiction is the recognition that all human authority comes with boundaries or limits. The one who confers authority upon another also put limits on how he may rightfully use his power. A policeman has authority to pull you over and give you a speeding ticket. He has been authorized to use his power toward that end. However, he does not have authority to tell you what house to buy or who you should marry. If a policeman tries to tell you what house to buy or who to marry, he is operating outside of his jurisdiction—which means that he is abusing his power by using it in a way he has not been authorized to use it.

When it comes to discerning a rightful use of authority, we have to ask, “What’s the purpose of this authorization? What’s the assigned task?” The answer to those questions clarifies jurisdiction, and what is a legitimate versus an illegitimate use of power (Leeman, 25).

Office designates a position of authority. The office-holder has been granted authority to use his power for a certain task or purpose. Office, therefore, is another way of speaking about authority. It’s a way of naming certain relationships and the obligations, responsibilities, and powers of each person in the relationship (Leeman, 26).

The President of the United States, for example, is an office that confers the right for a person to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces. It also confers the right to execute the laws of the nation, to make federal appointments, and to lead the federal bureaucracy. In other words, to hold an office is to hold a position authority—which is the right to use one’s power towards certain ends within a certain jurisdiction.

One of the key insights Leeman makes is the difference between authority and leadership. Leadership is a gift for getting people to follow—a certain charisma that rallies people toward whatever it is the leader wants people to do. Whenever you call someone “a natural leader,” you are talking about gifting or ability. Leadership is a power, as it were.

But natural leadership abilities are not the same thing as authority or office. My son may have natural leadership abilities, but that doesn’t mean that he has the right to lead me, his father. He may have that power (leadership) but he doesn’t have that right (authority). When someone has authority or occupies an office of authority, it creates a moral obligation to follow that person’s leadership. So no matter what my son’s leadership gifts are, I hold the office of father and have the God-given right to lead in our relationship. I have the authority.

What about the SBC?

Much that has gone wrong in the SBC is a direct consequence of not understanding what Baptists believe about power, authority, jurisdiction, and office. We take our beliefs about these things from Scripture, and we have a long history of doing so. When we say that the Bible describes “pastor” as an office, we mean that it is a recognized role of authority within a local church.

Any church arguing that pastor is a gift not an office is fundamentally distorting what the Bible says a pastor is. A pastor holds an office of authority and has been granted the right to lead the entire congregation.

The pastor doesn’t have unlimited power to do whatever he wants. He has been authorized to use his power to lead, protect, and provide for the congregation. God defines the pastor’s authority and his jurisdiction in Scripture. God also gives authority to congregations to recognize and appoint those who will fill the office according to qualifications God has defined.

God says that pastors must be the “husband of one wife” and must “manage his own household well” (1 Timothy 3:2, 4). Women are not called to be husbands nor are they called to manage their households over their husbands. Those are the exclusive responsibilities of husbands. So it is very clear that this office is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

When people make the argument that women can be associate pastors, they are essentially saying that there are some pastors that don’t have to meet all of the qualifications for pastors. They are saying that associate pastors need not be the husband of one wife nor good managers of their households.

That is why having female pastors – even in associate positions – is a massive problem for baptist Christians. If the husband-of-one-wife qualification and the managing-the-household qualification can be set aside, what other qualifications can be set aside? If associate pastors don’t have to meet those qualifications, then why must senior pastors meet those qualifications?

Conclusion

Congregations don’t have a right to set aside pastoral qualifications just so women can serve in the office. It’s a direct contradiction of Scripture. The arbitrary application of qualifications to some pastors and not others will inevitably lead to an erosion of biblical authority and eventually to female pastors and ultimately to unqualified male pastors.

Even if women have certain leadership gifts or abilities (power), that is not the same thing as having the authority to exercise those gifts over the entire congregation. God defines who is given that authority, and He authorizes congregations to follow His instructions in recognizing pastors. Congregations do not have the right to ignore God’s authorization. When they do so, congregations are abusing their authority and should repent.

Whether or not they repent, the Southern Baptist Convention acts righteously when it defines the office of pastor according to what the Bible says. It also acts righteously when it says cooperating churches should affirm what the Bible says about the office of pastor. That is why the Truth and Unity Amendment is so important. It merely clarifies what the Bible teaches about the office of pastor. If we want our convention to be unified in that truth, then we must pass this amendment. I hope and pray that we will next month.

“does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, such as preaching to the assembled congregation.”

Dr. Mohler explains the rationale for the proposal and answers some objections to it. You can watch or listen below.

First, there is no evidence that any of the songwriters intended the lyrics of the song to be a gay-affirming anthem. That was not a thing in anyone’s farthest imagination in 1997 when this song was released. Neither is there any evidence that any of the group members intended it to be a gay-affirming anthem in 1997. Indeed, one of the group members at the time (Michael Passons) eventually came-out publicly as gay, but that was nearly two decades after the other members of Avalon fired him for moral reasons relating to his homosexuality. There is no evidence in 1997 nor even in 2003 that Michael Passons’ bandmates in Avalon wished to affirm homosexuality. Indeed, his removal testifies to the opposite.

Second, former members of Avalon who left the band decades ago don’t get to make up a meaning for lyrics they didn’t write—much less impute some perversion to those lyrics that none of the authors or performers intended. That would be like saying that Thomas Jefferson’s words about “freedom” always meant to be LGBTQ+ affirming. It’s an absurdity even to suggest such a thing, and it’s no less absurd to impute such a thing to the authors of “Testify to Love.”

Third, none of the current members of Avalon have ever come out as gay-affirming. It would be unfair to them for fans to allow this inspirational song to be ruined by apostates who care nothing about the Christian faith represented in the song. The song belongs to Avalon and to the ages, and it has nothing to do with affirming sexual perversion.

The bottom line is that two former members of Avalaon who have deconstructed their faith are now trying to coopt “Testify To Love” for their deconstruction narratives. Don’t let them do that. Feel free to listen to Avalon and the original version of “Testify To Love.” There is nothing “affirming” about this song, and there never will be.

Here is the podcast in which Michael Passons tells how he was forced out of Avalon in 2003. 

Here is the original version of “Testify To Love” as it was released in 1997.

The General Assembly will be meeting right here in Louisville, KY next month, and the Duncan brothers help us understand what’s coming. Watch or listen below.

[You can listen to the rest of the message at the Apple Podcasts and Spotify links below.]

[You can watch the video below or listen to podcast below the video.]

[You can read the rest of my commentary in WORLD Opinions.]

“The World and Everything in It” podcast ran an audio version of the commentary, which you can listen to below.