This week, grassroots conservative Baptists in Texas tried to take a stand against egalitarianism in their proudly “confessional” state convention. But the platform of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) invented a legally dubious “interpretation” of its governing documents to rule those efforts out of order.

Fielder Baptist Church has said it “unwaveringly, unequivocally, gratefully has female pastors.” Two years ago, SBTC messengers reaffirmed the obvious conclusion that employing female pastors of any kind conflicts with the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.

Petulantly, Fielder dropped the title “pastor” and renamed all pastors—male and female—“shepherds.” But everyone knows that pastor and shepherd are synonyms in Scripture. 

Or so we thought. 

Fielder seemed to know that some SBTC leaders wanted to neuter the messengers’ decision, and so presented them with an absurd fig leaf.  Anyone who shared the messengers’ convictions would see through the ruse.  

In July, the SBTC Credentials Committee confronted Fielder’s lead “shepherd.” A majority of the Committee chose to take no action, effectively blessing Fielder’s end-run around the doctrinal statement that powers Baptist cooperative work. Marc Minter, the lone dissenting voice on the Credentials Committee, has chronicled this failure in two separate articles: here and here. 

Thus, in light of the Credentials Committee’s failure to defend the boundaries of cooperation in the confessional SBTC, three messengers moved to challenge Fielder’s affiliation at this year’s annual meeting, or unseat its messengers. 

All three were ruled out of order.

Former SBC president Bart Barber, writing in The Baptist Review, a moderate outlet, defended SBTC leaders. He said the SBTC’s constitution required this outcome. He argued that, because no female “pastors” remain, the Credentials Committee could not act. Because the SBTC constitution demands “advance written notice to any church that is subject to disaffiliation at any Annual Meeting,” the messengers could not act there either.

Under that view, messengers at the SBTC annual meetings could never remove a church. The Executive Board cannot issue a notice of a messenger motion until it is made, and the motion is out of order without such notice.  

Barber concedes the process is “flawed” and “untenable” but claims Texas Baptists had boxed themselves in inadvertently, “the physical laws of the universe,” he wrote, made it impossible for messengers to meet their self-imposed rules on removing churches at an annual meeting.

But this would not be a mere glitch. It is a Baptist constitutional crisis. No Baptist hierarchy—here, the Executive Board of the SBTC—should ever prevent messengers from regulating their own fellowship. That is episcopal or presbyterian governance, not Baptist. 

But was the Platform’s interpretation required, or even reasonable? No. It was a choice—a decision to declare a constitutional crisis rather than enforce the SBTC’s core beliefs.

It is the Baptist version of the Biden-Harris administration’s insistence that we must endure a Texas border crisis until Congress passes “comprehensive immigration reform.” That proved false when a new president reversed course without new laws.

Likewise, Texas Baptists do not need “comprehensive pastor reform” before enforcing their doctrinal borders. They need leaders willing to enforce the rules as written. The physical laws of the universe did not make this vote impossible; leadership did—by preferring executive convenience to doctrinal unity.

Two Straightforward Paths out of the thicket—No Crisis Needed

What does the SBTC constitution actually say? Contrary to Dr. Barber’s claim, it does not require the SBTC to “provide advance written notice to any church subject to disaffiliation.”

It states: “An affiliated church may be removed from the Convention by majority vote of the Executive Board or of the messengers at an annual session after the following process is completed: (a) the church has received written notice of the matter prompting the Executive Board’s consideration of removal, and (b) the Credentials Committee has attempted to resolve the matter by meeting with the pastor and/or leaders of the church.”

The key question is who is limited by those two steps. The “notice” requirement applies only to matters the Executive Board considers—not to actions taken by the messengers.

That leaves two possible readings:

1. Messenger consideration is distinct from Executive Board consideration; the notice rule limits the Executive Board’s consideration, not the messengers from considering their own motion.

2. Or the rule starts out saying it empowers a messenger vote, but actually makes that impossible. The interpretation turns the rule’s stated goal on its head and denies the thing it affirms in a prior clause. And it works by creating a hierarchy antithetical to the Convention’s stated beliefs and purposes.

The second reading nullifies the first sentence’s plain promise: that messengers may remove churches. It turns the constitution on its head, creating the hierarchy our faith rejects.

This is not a difficult choice. Robert’s Rules gives us a rule that tells us how to decide, as if there were any question, in section (56:68): “When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible of two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter meaning must be taken as the true meaning.”

Courts refer to this as the canon against surplusage: the right of messengers to remove churches cannot be read out of existence by interpretation.

So, our own rules tell us to pick the meaning that accomplishes the stated purpose, not the meaning that frustrates them. There was every method available to preserve messenger rights. There was no need to declare a governance crisis.

The Nature of the Required Notice

A second key question is: what kind of notice does the constitution demand? It requires “written notice of the matter prompting Executive Board consideration.” So the Constitution does not require notice of the messenger’s motion, or of a disaffiliation vote, or even notice of the messenger’s private concerns. If the board has not considered the matter, no special notice is required at all.

This is common sense. Churches do not send messengers to board meetings, so they must be warned in advance to appear where and when the discussion will take place. But at the annual meeting, messengers can only be challenged if present and seated. The church’s messengers are already present. They will know immediately if their church is under question and can speak in its defense.

Furthermore, as we know, Fielder did receive written notice. Pastor Marc Minter documented that the Credentials Committee prepared a written report and invited Fielder’s leaders to respond in July 2025. The committee’s written report satisfies the notice requirement; its meeting with Fielder satisfies the consultation requirement.

So, there were two interpretations available to preserve the constitution’s promise that messengers can remove churches. Instead, SBTC leaders chose a third option that makes the motion impossible and upends Baptist polity entirely.

The Stakes: When Baptist Stewards Become Bishops

Baptists have long distrusted concentrated authority. Our forebears knew that even good leaders can become unaccountable when procedure replaces consent. From the Philadelphia Confession to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Baptists have consistently affirmed that authority resides with the gathered churches, not with boards or executives acting in their stead.

When an executive body silences messengers, it crosses the line from service to subjugation. Boards and committees exist to help messengers, not to rule them. The alternative is an episcopal or Presbyterian hierarchy, which would upend Baptist governance.

Dr. Al Mohler captured the tension well: “The SBC is at a crossroads.” The issue is not merely whether Fielder is seeking to shirk the BF&M, but whether our leaders are as well. The problem is not only Fielder’s defiance but leaders too fatigued to care about what unites us — men who find doctrinal clarity tiring.  

But the very thing that motivates Baptist churches to give more is doctrinal clarity.  

An Uncessary Crisis of Convenience

Hierarchy often begins in convenience, not malice. Leaders convince themselves that bypassing the messengers protects the institution. Each such decision weakens the Convention. Baptist life depends on the willing participation of the churches, not bureaucratic guardianship.

It is discouraging to see leaders spend their energy frustrating the faithful and accommodating the indifferent. The solution is not new procedures or amendments, but humble leadership—or new leadership. We do not need to redefine “pastor” or amend the bylaws again. We need leaders who are willing to apply the rules with conviction, rather than convenience.

The churches own the Convention, not the other way around. The SBTC platform should correct course or be replaced by leaders committed to the Baptist Faith & Message, which unites the conservative and confessional Southern Baptists of Texas.

Baptist leaders must recover the servant leadership posture — always eager to help messengers with their decisions, never to make the work impossible.

This problem is not limited to Texas. The same temptation appears at the SBC level. When we meet in Orlando, we must elect leaders who lean into the churches—leaders who use the rules to advance our shared beliefs, not to stall them.

Brothers, we are not Presbyterians. And it’s time to stop acting like it.