How should the Baptist General Convention of Texas be governed? It should be governed by messengers from BGCT churches, gathering in the name of Jesus, seeking to carry out his will in submission to his lordship. That’s a full sentence, in more than one sense.
While messengers will still govern the BGCT, some are concerned proposed constitution and bylaw amendments will reduce the scope of what messengers decide … if messengers adopt those amendments as currently stated.
Messengers to the 2026 BGCT annual meeting need to think carefully about governance changes that alter their scope of authority. A proposed new paragraph is one such example.
Last week, I encouraged Texas Baptist church members to keep asking their questions about the BGCT. Those questions have been about budget cuts, staff reductions, organizational restructuring, GC2, women in ministry, and whether churches will leave the BGCT.
Since the September BGCT Executive Board meeting and the board’s vote to send proposed constitution and bylaw amendments to messengers for approval, questions and concerns have also arisen about BGCT governance.
These questions and concerns focus on the substantive changes to BGCT governance that would result from adopting the proposed amendments.
Recognizing the significance of these changes, BGCT leadership published an explainer on Oct. 16 and posted a redline version of the proposed amendments to the Texas Baptists 2026 annual meeting webpage.
The proposed changes are not being made in the dark nor are they being pushed through behind closed doors.
Messengers to the 2026 BGCT annual meeting will have the opportunity to decide on these proposed changes. For that reason, they should have as much information about the proposals as possible, and they should consider possible downstream results of adopting them.
Sign up for our weekly edition and get all our headlines in your inbox on Thursdays
The process
First, messengers should know the process of adopting constitutional and bylaw amendments.
Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in the affirmative in two consecutive annual meetings. Constitutional amendments introduced in 2026 would not go into effect until they pass a two-thirds affirmative vote at the 2026 and 2027 annual meetings.
Bylaw amendments require a single affirmative vote. Messengers will vote on the proposed bylaw amendments at the 2027 annual meeting. See the explainer linked above for further explanation of this process.
An expanded function
David Mahfouz, in his letter to the editor published Oct. 28, expresses concerns about the proposed constitution and bylaw amendments. These concerns focus on a proposed new paragraph under Article VII: Executive Board, Section 1: Functions of the current BGCT constitution.
A new Paragraph D would read: “The Executive Board has the authority to determine, on the Convention’s behalf, whether a church is in harmonious cooperation. The Executive Board has the responsibility, on the Convention’s behalf, by an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the Directors present and voting to receive churches into and remove churches from Convention membership.”
The new paragraph would expand a function messengers adopted in 2016. During that annual meeting, Craig Christina, then pastor of Shiloh Terrace Baptist Church in Dallas, moved “that any church which affirms any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a marriage between one man and one woman be considered out of harmonious cooperation with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.”
As reported by Baptist Standard: “Before messengers voted on that motion, they first approved a motion by Steve Wells, pastor of South Main Baptist Church in Houston, which said, ‘the convention reserves to itself exclusively, through a two-thirds vote of its Executive Board, the authority to remove a congregation from harmonious cooperation.’”
Christina is now the BGCT’s associate executive director and a staff liaison to the Constitution and Bylaws Task Force. Wells is also a member of the task force.
Benefits of the change
There are two benefits to the BGCT Executive Board having the authority, on the convention’s behalf, to vote churches in or out of the convention. One, it makes the process more efficient. Two, in the words of the explainer, it “helps prevent a potentially difficult or damaging discussion from occurring in a more open setting” when a church is being considered for removal.
Efficiency and privacy are benefits, but as Mahfouz points out, they are benefits that may have undesirable consequences.
Unintended consequences?
As Mahfouz indicates, if the Executive Board is granted the authority, on the convention’s behalf, to add and remove churches from BGCT membership, it essentially elects itself. Remember, Executive Board members are elected by messengers who come from the very churches the Executive Board would deem in or out of harmonious cooperation with the convention.
Should this expanded authority be granted the Executive Board, Mahfouz points to the need for an appeal process. A church deemed outside harmonious cooperation by the Executive Board should be able to appeal that decision beyond the board. The most appropriate place to do that is before messengers at an annual meeting, at which point privacy is out the window. An appeal process should be clearly stated in the same constitution.
Mahfouz asks a question I also have asked, though not in this forum: By adopting this constitutional amendment, “are Texas Baptists … transferring authority from the churches to the Executive Board?” On at least one matter, the answer is, “Yes.”
In 2016, messengers gave the Executive Board authority to remove a church from harmonious cooperation with the BGCT by a two-thirds vote of the board. In 2026, messengers are being asked to expand that authority to also receiving churches into harmonious cooperation with the convention. That is a transfer of authority, if even by one degree. Is that a precedent messengers want to set?
Consider governance changes carefully
Given the substantive nature of the proposed constitutional and bylaw amendments, it is reasonable for BGCT churches to examine the proposed changes fully.
Questions worth asking include: “Is the problem the amendment proposes to solve reason enough to justify this governance change? If so, what undesirable consequences need to be accounted for within the governance documents?”
From my experiences with members of the Constitution and Bylaws Task Force, I know they care deeply about the church and about the BGCT. I believe they intend the best for the BGCT. These are good people who take serving the Lord seriously. I count friends among them. And none of that means we shouldn’t ask questions of them.
As I ended the editorial last week, so I end this editorial:
Messengers to the upcoming BGCT annual meeting will have much to consider. They should prepare themselves ahead of the Nov. 16 and 17 business sessions by praying, reading what we and Texas Baptists Communications publish on those matters, and praying again.
And it won’t hurt for the business to be preceded by a collective getting on our faces before God, asking what God wants for the future of the BGCT, and waiting on God’s answer before we move forward.
Eric Black is the executive director, publisher, and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.
We seek to connect God’s story and God’s people around the world. To learn more about God’s story, click here.
Send comments and feedback to Eric Black, our editor. For comments to be published, please specify “letter to the editor.” Maximum length for publication is 300 words.