Pragmatism Over Protest—A Female Entrepreneur’s View on Church Governance

I belong to the first generation of American women to wear pants and blue jeans en masse. We were the miniskirt and micro-short generation, the children of second-wave feminism who watched our peers burn bras, march in the streets, and demand total equality. We were women and we roared.

In the late 1980s, swept up in that independent current, I launched my own business. By 1992, I was publishing a local Christian newsletter in Nashville that eventually grew into a digital publication still running today. I wasn’t a political ideologue; when I took those popular multiple-choice political spectrum tests back then, I consistently landed right in the center—an independent moderate with libertarian leanings. Brought up by an agnostic father, I was not raised as a traditional conservative Christian woman.

My basic cultural views have not changed drastically since the 1990s, although I did turn more and more to the Bible for wisdom as I grew older, but age has brought a degree of wisdom, and wisdom has made me a pragmatist. It is through that lens of hard-nosed pragmatism—rather than abstract dogma—that I find myself arriving at a conclusion that will likely offend many women, and quite a few men: True progress does not mean women need to occupy every seat of governing authority, whether in the halls of state or the halls of the church.

This tension is playing out vividly right now. At the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in Orlando last month, messengers voted overwhelmingly by a 3-to-1 margin to advance the “Truth and Unity Amendment.” If approved again next year, this constitutional change will officially disfellowship any church that affirms or endorses a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor, elder, or overseer—specifically including preaching to the assembled congregation. Predictably, the cultural response has been swift. Critics are lobbing the usual accusations of systemic sexism, claiming that men are actively suppressing female voices out of insecurity or malice.

But looking at this debate after decades of watching women’s rights play out in real-world commerce and culture, I see it differently. The clamor for female pulpits is less about spiritual calling and more about the modern worship of representation over results.

True pragmatism—the ability to look at a situation objectively, strip away emotion, and execute a decision based solely on long-term stability—is a rare commodity. In all honesty, truly pragmatic women are few and far between. Most of us, including myself quite frequently, naturally react first from the heart and from our feelings. We lead with empathy, intuition, and emotion. In the private spheres of family, counseling, and community, that heartcentric wiring is an indispensable superpower. But in the cold architecture of institutional governance and doctrinal boundary-setting, decisions must be made with logic from the brain. Important decisions require the heavy hand of detached pragmatism.

Historically and biologically, men are uniquely structured to handle that specific brand of detached, high-stakes decision-making. This is not an assertion of male superiority; it is an acknowledgement of design. When men are allowed to step into their natural roles as protectors and final arbiters, organizations maintain structure. Unfortunately, the modern cultural narrative has spent the last few decades doing everything it can to mentally castrate men, constantly lecturing them that their natural masculine instincts are inherently “toxic.” When men are beaten down by this rhetoric, they abdicate their responsibilities, leaving a vacuum that emotionalism eagerly fills.

Restricting the final seat of governing authority to men does not diminish the profound influence of women. Our culture has deeply confused authority with influence. According to biblical teaching, the role of experienced women is clear: we are called to train, build up, and mentor the younger generation of women. Furthermore, women wield immense, quiet power over the men around them. It is universally understood in Western culture that a wise man will listen to his wife and give her perspective serious consideration. Her insights, often rooted in the intuitive feelings of her heart, provide a vital balance that a wise leader ignores at his own peril. But listening to counsel is different from carrying the burden of final execution.

My generation marched for the right to do everything a man could do. We achieved magnificent breakthroughs in business and financial independence—milestones I have personally benefited from as an entrepreneur. But wisdom means knowing where the revolution should have stopped.

The Southern Baptists who stood up in Orlando to draw a firm boundary around the pulpit were not acting out of hatred for women. They were restoring an essential structural alignment. Establishing these boundaries isn’t about devaluing women; it’s about adhering to a specific scriptural design for spiritual authority and protection.

When women demand to take the helm of church governance, we are trading our deep, foundational influence for a loud, exhausting fight over a title or position. True pragmatism requires acknowledging that some burdens are simply meant for male shoulders. It is time for women to step back from the podium, stop fighting the men who are trying to lead, and reclaim the quiet, undeniable power of our own distinct calling.