I don’t know where you stand on the issues discussed below. My goal in writing this is simply to make sure that pastors who may not follow convention matters are aware of these concerns, from one pastor’s perspective. As there’s a lot of discussion out there right now, I thought this would be a potentially helpful addition to the conversation. Also, apologies for the length. I was trying to aim for clarity over brevity.

$3.7m Reduction to BGCT’s 2027 Budget

Two weeks ago, the finance committee of the Texas Baptists Executive Board reviewed a proposed budget for 2027 that reflects a $3.7m reduction. As Texas Baptists leadership acknowledged, that is a significant reduction. The obvious question is: Why is this happening?

Certainly, not all of it can be attributed to any one factor. Cooperative Program giving ebbs and flows, and churches face their own financial challenges. Our BGCT Leadership recently met with other state conventions leaders from across the country, many of whom report similar declining CP giving. We should be careful not to oversimplify a complicated situation. 

But I do think there is another piece of the puzzle that deserves an honest conversation: Some “conservative” Texas Baptist churches are increasingly finding it difficult to feel “at home” within the Baptist General Convention of Texas.^[1]

Perhaps it is only a minority of churches. Perhaps it is larger than that. I don’t know. But I do know that there are churches like ours that are beginning to make financial decisions differently. Not because we have stopped believing in cooperative ministry, and not because we have stopped loving Texas Baptists, but because we increasingly have questions about whether the direction of the convention reflects our theological convictions.

I Say This with Genuine Gratitude

Before I explain those concerns, I want to make something very clear: I am deeply grateful for the BGCT. I have been a Texas Baptist my entire life, apart from four years when I lived near Kansas City. I grew up in this convention. I have benefited personally from its ministries. More importantly, I am grateful for the countless ways Texas Baptists have served churches and advanced the gospel for more than a century.

That history is part of why this conversation matters so much to me. I want the BGCT to remain a healthy and faithful instrument for kingdom work for another hundred years. And precisely because I care about that future, I think we need to talk honestly about why some churches are becoming increasingly uncomfortable.

Our Church’s Experience

About a year ago, the church I serve as pastor voted almost unanimously to become dually aligned with the BGCT and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC). Before making that decision, we met with BGCT leadership, who graciously listened to our concerns. Even so, we ultimately believed dual alignment best reflected our convictions.

We are only one church, of course, but our decision did have at least some financial impact. Thanks to the faithfulness of my predecessors, our church has historically designated a settled 10% of all undesignated gifts to the Cooperative Program. We are not abandoning that commitment. We intend, by God’s grace, to continue giving 10% or more to the Cooperative Program indefinitely. 

But we have felt compelled by conviction to redirect a portion of those Cooperative Program dollars. For our church, that initial decision meant approximately $170,000 less in annual Cooperative Program giving to the BGCT. Because of our continuing concerns about the direction of Texas Baptists, our church will likely decrease our BGCT giving by another $120,000 per year in 2027, essentially placing our giving in a “holding pattern” as we wait to see what the future holds. 

We are not decreasing our Cooperative Program giving. Rather, we are redirecting a portion of those dollars toward ministries and conventions that we believe more clearly reflect our theological convictions. And I suspect other churches are making similar calculations. 

To be clear, I am not arguing that the BGCT must require theological uniformity on every secondary issue. Nor am I arguing that every institution or church with which we disagree should be excluded from fellowship. My concern is narrower: if cooperation requires some degree of shared conviction, then there must also be meaningful theological boundaries around the institutions and ministries we financially support, platform, and partner with. The question for some conservative churches is whether those boundaries are becoming increasingly difficult to discern. 

So What Are the Concerns?

Here are a few concerns that have been raised, not simply by our church, but by others who share similar theological convictions. I recognize we may be a minority, and you may disagree with these concerns. Nonetheless, here is how I see them.

1. The Increasingly Explicit “Centrist” Identity

Texas Baptists have increasingly embraced the descriptor “centrist.” That language is not merely something outsiders have imposed upon the convention. It has been used positively by influential Texas Baptist leaders and in convention-related initiatives.

For example, the Ascent movement was launched with enthusiastic Texas Baptist involvement and described itself as bringing together “centrist, orthodox Christians” from across denominational lines, including Texas Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Mennonites, and others.^[2]

There is nothing wrong with Christians from different traditions cooperating where we genuinely share convictions. But some conservative Baptists understandably have questions when “centrist” becomes more than a description of theological posture and begins to function as an identity for the convention. The concern is not that Texas Baptists should be defined by unnecessary theological division. It is that a convention’s desire to occupy the center can eventually create uncertainty about where its theological boundaries actually lie. 

2. Questions About Biblical Inerrancy

Conservative Southern Baptists have historically considered the authority, inspiration, sufficiency, and inerrancy of Scripture foundational convictions. And to be clear, by “inerrancy” I mean as described in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This matters enormously to some churches whose cooperation is built upon confidence that Scripture is the completely trustworthy Word of God.

I realize it may not be a feasible or reasonable expectation for the BGCT to draw a “line in the sand” by requiring all churches to affirm inerrancy, per the Chicago Statement. I’m simply asking: for churches for whom biblical inerrancy is a crucial foundation, how do we reconcile financially supporting a convention whose doctrinal standards do not require that same commitment of its churches and institutions?^[3]

We have concerns about institutions with which the BGCT partners having leaders and professors who openly hold positions such as open theism and who do not affirm any Baptist statement of faith that clarifies the authority and truthfulness of all of Scripture. At some point, the “big tent” can become too big, and lose the theological boundaries necessary to preserve its identity. And when theological boundaries become increasingly unclear, it becomes difficult to know what convictions actually define our cooperation. 

This isn’t an argument for theological uniformity on every secondary question. To many, it will seem like it. To me, this is an argument that theological boundaries matter if a convention is going to ask churches to financially cooperate with its institutions and ministries. And of all things we need clarity on, the sufficiency and authority of the Word of God is paramount.

3. The Growing Acceptance and Promotion of Egalitarianism

This is probably the most significant concern for some conservative churches. And I realize to many reading this article, this may feel like “beating a dead horse.” I get that. The concern is that egalitarianism increasingly appears to be moving from something the convention merely accommodates to something it actively platforms, promotes, and financially supports.

Texas Baptists have increasingly platformed egalitarian pastors, and in 2024 the convention had its first sermon delivered by a woman (though not a pastor) in its official convention setting. In a panel discussion that same year, the BGCT had its first female senior pastor platformed in an official capacity. In 2025, the first ordained female pastor (though not a senior pastor) was elected to serve as president of the BGCT. 

I realize these may seem like small steps. But taken together, they suggest a direction that raises legitimate questions for convictional complementarians. According to Texas Baptists leadership, the convention’s position on women in ministry is that this is “an issue of biblical interpretation, not an issue of biblical authority.” I understand that position, and I also recognize that this is not a new development within the BGCT. But for convictional complementarians, how does the increasing promotion and support of women pastors align with our theological convictions? 

In my view, Scripture is clear on this issue. And if Scripture is clear on this issue, then knowingly practicing or promoting what Scripture forbids is ultimately an act of disobedience to God. That is the conviction of our church as a whole, and I suspect it is also the conviction of at least some other BGCT churches. So, naturally, we have to ask: How can we continue to financially support a convention and its ministries when they plant churches with female pastors and support the training of female pastors?

And this isn’t limited to churches. Truett Seminary, the BGCT’s flagship seminary, embraces an egalitarian approach to pastoral ministry. Its faculty openly affirms an egalitarian approach to pastoral ministry, and approximately 46% of its master’s-level student body is female. I am grateful for women who desire theological training and faithful service to Christ. The concern is the theological purpose and direction of that training. If Truett intentionally trains women for pastoral ministry within an egalitarian framework, that raises the same question for us: How can convictional complementarians financially support an institution whose approach to pastoral ministry is fundamentally different from our understanding of Scripture?  

I realize that some, perhaps many, would see no problem with this, particularly in light of the autonomy of the local church and the autonomy of each of these institutions.^[4] To others, however, this remains a question we are still grappling with. 

4. Baylor, Truett, and the Baptist World Alliance

There are also growing concerns about some of the convention’s institutional partnerships. Baylor University and Truett Seminary remain deeply important institutions within the Texas Baptist family, and I don’t question the enormous amount of good that has come from either institution. But there have also been controversies that have left some conservative churches wondering about the theological direction of these institutions.

At the most recent BGCT annual meeting, for example, a motion was brought forward asking for an inquiry into Baylor’s relationship with student organizations associated with LGBTQ issues. The motion was not a demand for separation from Baylor. It was a request to evaluate the nature of the university’s involvement. In my view, that was a reasonable motion. But nonetheless, influential Texas Baptist pastors and leaders spoke against the motion, and the motion failed.

The point isn’t that every decision made by Baylor is wrong, nor that it has abandoned every traditional Christian position. The concern is whether the convention is willing to seriously examine these questions when churches and pastors raise them. For some churches and pastors like me, the nature of that relationship raises serious questions about whether we can continue to support Baylor through our BGCT giving. I am grateful that in April, convention leadership announced a “study” of its relationship with Baylor. And I’m hopeful that the Institutional Relations Committee (IRC) will bring forward at November’s annual meeting a significant recommendation on our relationship with Baylor. But I am disappointed that these questions received this level of institutional attention only after the “All Are Neighbors” event, which featured speakers who identity as gay Christians.  

A similar issue arises with the Baptist World Alliance. The BGCT has continued and recently emphasized even more its partnership with the BWA, even though the BWA includes member churches and groups that are LGBTQ-affirming, including some that ordain openly homosexual clergy.

BGCT leadership were gracious enough to speak with me about these concerns and helpfully explained the differing degrees of separation between the various groups with which the convention networks. However, the issue still remains, in my opinion: even in very limited ways, it is a problem that we partner with (and celebrate) groups or alliances that do not have, at a minimum, a meaningful standard of doctrinal orthodoxy for their member groups and churches. 

At the 2025 annual meeting, a motion to remove the BGCT’s partnership with the BWA was rejected. At a minimum, a serious look at this relationship is warranted, especially if the BGCT wants to take seriously the concerns being raised by some churches and pastors. 

Again, “conservative” churches aren’t necessarily asking the convention to agree with them on every issue. They are asking whether shared theological convictions should place limits on institutional partnerships. To me, at least, the obvious answer should be “yes.” 

5. “Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing”

Perhaps the most difficult part of this conversation is the repeated emphasis within Texas Baptists on avoiding division and “keeping the main thing the main thing.” I understand and agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Christians should not be eager to divide. The gospel is central, and the unity of Christ’s church matters. But what does it mean to “keep the main thing the main thing”?

In the midst of Texas Baptists’ significant emphasis on GC2, the convention’s emphasis on the Great Commission and the Great Commandment, I wonder if we have neglected one important part of the Great Commission: “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). The Great Commission is not merely about making disciples in the sense of initial conversion; it also includes teaching, preaching, and shepherding God’s people according to the whole counsel of God’s Word. 

At a minimum, can we not be so quick to dismiss concerns raised by more conservative pastors and churches? Increasingly, I have seen a dismissive, and at times even mocking, attitude toward complementarian pastors and churches from those who believe we should have moved beyond these questions long ago. 

Some conservative Baptists like me are asking whether some of the theological disagreements being treated as distractions are actually biblical convictions that should matter to a denomination. The concern isn’t that every disagreement should become a hill to die on. The concern is that an understandable desire for “unity” can sometimes become a reason to avoid necessary theological clarity.

Why This Matters for Cooperation

I don’t expect every BGCT church or pastor to agree with me. There are many faithful Christians and faithful churches within Texas Baptists with whom I have theological disagreements and yet with whom I gladly cooperate on matters where we genuinely share convictions. 

The question is not, “Are we brothers and sisters in Christ?” Of course we are! The question is, “Can we continue sending financial support to a convention that supports positions and practices we believe to be contrary to Scripture?” That is a different question. 

Cooperation requires some degree of shared conviction. That’s why pastoral qualifications, biblical authority, and institutional partnerships matter to me. When a convention increasingly accommodates, supports, or promotes positions that run contrary to those convictions (while simultaneously describing conservative concerns as divisive or as an obsession with secondary issues), it becomes harder for some conservative churches to feel that the convention is ourconvention too.

Conclusion

I remain deeply grateful for Texas Baptists, for the people I know, the ministries I benefit from, and the countless ways God uses this convention to advance His kingdom. But gratitude for the past doesn’t require silence about the future. And I believe some conservative churches and pastors, like me, are feeling less and less at home in the BGCT.

And if the convention is experiencing significant financial decline, perhaps we should at least be willing to ask whether part of the answer is sitting in plain sight: Some of the very churches that have faithfully supported Texas Baptists for generations are beginning to wonder whether Texas Baptists still represents the convictions they hold.

I don’t raise these questions with anger. I raise them with gratitude, concern, and hope. I am grateful for the BGCT and for the many ways God has used Texas Baptists to advance the gospel. Precisely because of that gratitude, I hope we can have an honest conversation about where the convention is going, and whether churches like mine will continue to feel at home here. 

I’d like to thank Dr. Guarneri, Executive Director of Texas Baptists, for our recent phone conversation before I posted this article. He was kind, honest, and hopeful for the future of Texas Baptists. If you have similar concerns or questions, please don’t hesitate to email Dr. Guarneri at julio.guarneri@texasbaptists.org.  

---

^[1] I recognize “conservative” may not be the most helpful label to use here, as there are differing definitions of what it means to be a “conservative” church. Broadly speaking, one could argue that all BGCT churches are “conservative,” at least compared with historic mainline Protestantism. So for clarity, by “conservative,” I mean churches that 1) are likely complementarian, 2) hold to a high view of Scripture (for many, that means affirming inerrancy), and 3) are concerned about any partnership or affiliation with institutions that do not share these convictions. 

^[2] Dr. Guarneri did clarify with me that, though he was there as a speaker and several other Texas Baptist pastors have been part of the formation of Ascent, that Ascent is not an official partner with Texas Baptists. 

^[3] To be clear, the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message was adopted by the BGCT first in 1980, then reaffirmed it in 1999 as the “unifying statement of our common faith and practice.” And the 1963 BF&M does include the phrase “truth without any mixture of error,” referring to Scripture. But, of course, neither of these actions made the BF&M a binding confession required of BGCT churches or institutions. Hence, one of the problems, in my opinion. 

^[4] It is worth clarifying that the BGCT is different from the SBC. The SBC owns and governs each of its seminaries. The BGCT does not own or govern Baylor University or Truett Seminary, though we do “partner” with them in significant ways, including with finances and platforming.