For the last two weeks, I’ve begun to answer the question “Why and how do Baptist Churches cooperate with one another?” I shared about our local cooperation through the Palo Pinto Baptist Association (PPBA), and I also explained our national cooperation through the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

But I skipped a level: the state of Texas. Parallel to the structure of the SBC, each state has a “state convention.” Some states have two state conventions and Texas is just such a state.

The original state convention is called the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) but recently re-branded as “Texas Baptists.” Most southern Baptist churches in Texas partner with each other through the BGCT, including many churches in our local association.

However, Indian Creek is affiliated with the other state convention, the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC). Why? To answer that question in might help if I share a little of the history of the SBTC.

Keep in mind: I didn’t start out in Texas and I didn’t start out as a Southern Baptist. I wasn’t around when the SBTC began so if you’re really interested you might want to ask someone who participated in the story.

But I’ll do my best: The SBTC began in 1998 with 120 churches. The reason these churches formed a new state convention instead of continuing as part of the BGCT was because they felt that their Baptist brothers in Texas were purposefully distancing themselves from the larger SBC. Moreover, many believed that the BGCT was in danger of compromising on important issues.

One of those issues is referred to as “inerrancy.” The founders of the SBTC believed (like we do!) that the Bible is “inerrant,” that it is true and without error in all of its claims regardless of the subject matter. Many Baptists in Texas disagreed or had qualifications, and BGCT as a whole wasn’t willing to make “inerrancy” a test of fellowship. 

Another issue was that of abortion. SBTC churches are pro-life: they teach (like we do!) that life begins at conception and that the government ought to protect human beings in the womb. Apparently, some Baptists disagreed, and the BGCT took a softer stance on this issue than many would have liked.

There are other specific examples of sticking points between the BGCT and the founders of the SBTC (see here), but a lot of it came down to funding. These brothers simply weren’t willing to go to their congregation and ask for money, only to turn around and give that money (through the Cooperative Program) to entities that disagreed with them on critical issues.

When members of Indian Creek researched these matters years ago, they felt enough agreement with the SBTC to align with them permanently, and it’s been that way ever since.

I hasten to add that many (most?) BGCT-aligned churches are as sound and healthy as you could ask for. It’s not that aligning with the BGCT is inherently bad. It’s more that we’d rather send our financial support and form our partnerships with an institution that explicitly and uniformly identifies with us on key doctrines. These are not easy decisions and we try to approach these matters prayerfully and with open Bibles.

And that brings me to the recent challenges faced by the churches of the SBTC. As I shared last week, most Baptist churches are confessional: they are willing to summarize what they believe the Bible teaches, partner with those who agree, and still recognize that other Christians may disagree on some matters of secondary importance.

The SBTC is a confessional convention: churches must agree with the Baptist Faith & Message (2000) to remain aligned. Again, this is about partnership: We want to partner most closely with those who share our doctrinal beliefs. It’s not that we’re better than anyone else or that we never get anything wrong. It’s just that we want to pour our energies, talents, time, and treasure into that which we believe the Bible says. Others are free to do the same.

Recently, the SBTC hit a snag, and it has to do with the office of “pastor.” Our church, along with the majority of SBTC churches, agree that the office of pastor is reserved for men (cf. 1 Timothy 2:12). The SBTC codified this stance in its bylaws over the course of several annual meetings.

It's obvious that some of the largest churches in the SBTC take exception to this stance. Recently, when a large church in Arlington was reported to the SBTC Credentials Committee because several of its pastoral staff are women, the church simply changed their titles from “pastor” to “shepherd” (two words that mean the same thing!).

While this church is free to do whatever they want, other SBTC churches are free to define the boundaries of their denominational cooperation. Since their position contradicts Scripture, compromises with the world on a timely issue, and clashes with the obvious stance of the majority, many of us will want to revisit this issue. I pray that we can arrive at a solution by our next annual meeting next fall.