In a move that should surprise no one who’s been paying attention, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has once again proven that when faced with a choice between standing firm on biblical principles or caving to cultural pressure, they’ll take the path of least resistance. The recent failure to pass the Mike Law Amendment is a glaring testament to the theological decay festering within this ostensible “fortress” of conservative Christianity.

Historically, denominations and churches that have failed to uphold biblical doctrinal standards regarding women in the pulpit have always spiraled into total apostasy. Look no further than the mainline Protestant denominations—most recently, the United Methodists. Once they opened the floodgates to women pastors, it wasn’t long before they were ordaining practicing homosexuals, blessing same-sex marriages, and questioning the authority of Scripture altogether. It’s a slippery slope, to be sure, with no limiting factor—and the SBC is now sliding down it with reckless abandon.

The Mike Law Amendment was a last-ditch effort to stop this inevitable decline. It sought to amend the SBC Constitution to explicitly state that for cooperating churches, only men can serve as pastors or elders, as qualified by Scripture. This wasn’t a radical innovation—it was a reaffirmation of what the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 already says. But, in typical fashion, the SBC chose to pass up the opportunity to make a clear, unequivocal stand. Instead, they chose what was easiest in the moment and sounded best to feminists and their enablers within the denomination.

Men like former SBC president JD Greear and presidential nominee, Bruce Frank, along with other denominational moderates and leftists, spent an entire year campaigning against the amendment, fearing that it would cause “unnecessary division.” Yet, this fear of division is really just a pathetic excuse for avoiding the hard truths of Scripture. Division is not always a negative outcome, especially when it arises from standing firm on biblical principles. What Greear and his ilk fail to acknowledge is that true unity in the church is based on a shared commitment to God’s Word, not on compromising truth for the sake of superficial harmony.

The amendment needed a two-thirds majority to pass. Despite receiving a majority of votes, it failed to meet the threshold. Out of the 10,942 messengers present, 61.45% voted in favor, while 38.38% voted against. This is a clear indication that nearly 40% of the messengers are either woefully ignorant of Scripture or are more interested in appeasing the culture than in upholding biblical truth.

But let’s be clear, this failure is not just a procedural hiccup—many well-meaning conservatives have argued that it was merely logistics that caused such a drastic shift out of favor of the amendment over last year. The location of the annual meeting, they argue, caused a change in demographics among messengers who turned out to vote. As much as I respect the men still in this fight, I find this argument weak and lacking merit while failing to grasp the seriousness of the theological rot behind such election results.

To vote against such a clear affirmation of Scripture, one has to abandon the authority of Scripture altogether. The Bible is explicit about gender roles in the church. First Timothy 2:12-14 states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” The pastoral office is clearly reserved for men. This is not a matter of interpretation or cultural context—it’s a straightforward command.

But instead of standing on the clear teaching of Scripture, the SBC has opted for the cowardly approach. They’ve allowed the fear of being labeled misogynistic or out-of-touch to override their commitment to biblical fidelity. This is how theological decay begins. It starts with small compromises, with little concessions to the culture, and before long, the entire foundation is eroded.

Then, of course, we have the theological moderate-conservatives (not to be confused with the ever-dwindling numbers of true conservatives)—the men in the SBC who stood in favor of the Law Amendment and even campaigned for it, urging Southern Baptists to vote in favor of it. This would include leaders like the newly-elected president, Clint Pressley, Al Mohler, and Denny Burk.

While I can respect the affirmations of these men who supported the Amendment, clearly, to them, it wasn’t a hill important enough to die on. If history repeats itself, knowing these men, they will do almost nothing to continue the fight against women in the pulpit and will continue to, for “unity’s sake,” be unequally yoked with false churches with women pastors.

The SBC’s reluctance to affirm the Mike Law Amendment is a glaring example of what happens when a denomination loses its nerve and the leadership fail to act in accordance with Scripture. The Scriptures command us to purge the evil from among us—but the Clint Pressleys, the Al Mohlers, and the Denny Burks clearly aren’t willing to do that. And despite what his supporters and fellow pastors say, Clint Pressley is not the “man for the hour,” rather he is a continuation of the same politics that’s driven the SBC to irrelevancy over the decades.

In reality, though, this isn’t just about women in the pulpit. It’s about the authority of Scripture. It’s about whether we believe that God’s Word is sufficient for all matters of faith and practice, or whether we think we need to modify it to fit the whims of contemporary society or whether we have the right to “agree to disagree” even if we claim to believe the Scriptures are final. The failure to pass this amendment is a clear indication that a significant portion of the SBC is leaning toward the latter.

To those who voted against the amendment, let me remind you: God does not bend to the culture. His Word is eternal, unchanging, and not subject to the ever-evolving cultural trends of today. By failing to take a stand on this fundamental truth, you’ve not only compromised your own integrity—you’ve also set a dangerous precedent for future generations.

In the end, the SBC’s decision to reject the Mike Law Amendment is a tragic sign of theological decay. It’s a clear message that they are more interested in being liked by the world than in being faithful to the Word. And as history has shown us time and again, when a denomination takes this path, total apostasy is not far behind.