Why does a person stay with the pastoral life? How does one endure when it gets really hard?

Most reading this will know the answer: the call of God. But what is it about the call that sustains a pastor in a life most people would abandon?

One of the elusive mysteries of life for many people is they never discover who they truly are and who God created them to be.

If the person actually is called to ministry, that mystery is settled when she accepts God’s claim on her life to serve as a pastor. When he says, “Here am I,” he begins to live with a uniquely clarified identity.

God’s claim leads one to bypass vocational options in disregard of fanciful imaginings of an ideal life. You are seized at the depths of your being and drawn into the very center of God’s work on earth.

Your life is bound to his mission. You can do nothing else. As you give in to this call, any ambiguities about the purpose of your life fade into the distance.

When my call was made clear

How does one sense such a singular and profound awakening to one’s true self?

For me, it was one word from God: “You!”

I had started school at a local community college not knowing what to do with my life. It was one of those springs when friends were dying in an unpopular war, the culture and nation were in chaos, leaders were being assassinated, and buildings on college campuses were being blown up.

I was deeply disturbed by a world gone wrong and entered a season of questioning, lament and prayer.

One day, I drove to my favorite prayer spot by the ocean and, in a moment of audacity, began to tell God someone needed to do something to keep our world from coming apart.

Right then, God called me.

It was less than a whisper, but I heard God say, “You!”

God’s claim on me went to the depth of every fiber of my being with that grasp I already knew would not let me go. But at that moment, it was like that double-grasp letting me know neither would he let me off.

I looked down at the New Testament I was holding in my hands and instantly realized I was called to preach and serve as a pastor.

Not always immediately clear

I am aware the awakening to how to live out a vocation is not always sudden and instantly clear for all. In fact, it now seems fairly common for God to lead his servants through a process. But for those led by God to be pastors, that tenacious and unyielding grasp is all-encompassing of every part of who we are.

When the call came upon me, it came with an enveloping peace. There was a rightness about it and a singularity of purpose that left for me no desired alternative. When I sensed that “You!” and surrendered my life, I instantly was enlisted into the royal pastoral office of our Lord Jesus Christ to preach his gospel and serve his body, the church—the local church.

God’s call sustains

Most candidates for the pastoral life are challenged by other pastors to pursue any alternative life or calling if they can. No pastoral candidate at the threshold of ministry or in the early days possibly could know what lies ahead.

From my own observation and anecdotal research, I can tell you only the called survive in the pastoral life.

Many superb men and women have stepped aside from the pastoral life for a season to preserve mental and physical health or pursue the calling in another way. For most, the call remains, and they continue to serve faithfully in ministries complementary to and flowing out of local churches.

Every veteran I know of the challenges and heartaches of pastoral ministry, the chaos and the battles, will tell you the call of God sustained them. No pastor can endure the immense stresses of the pastoral life unless they are seized at the depths.

The ordinary challenges alone can be barely survivable. Add the complex pathologies of human systems, compounded by the forces of evil, and it is just too much.

A hard yet magnificent calling

In my 18 years of teaching in a theological seminary following 30 years of pastoral ministry, I pondered and agonized about how much to share with younger pastors. I usually took the edge off such conversations and stories. I still wonder if that was what I should have done.

Too many already cross the threshold into ministry skeptical and averse to the pastoral life, because they have seen and heard too much in the church.

Early on, I dove deeply into the pastoral life and was jostled immediately by human pathologies and evil forces that threw me on my knees. Many nights I wondered what strange land I had entered and how I could journey on.

Always … always … for me at least, I sensed deeply and profoundly the grasp of God upon my life. I would not trade any life in this world for that.

I know my purpose and who holds me in it and for it. That is probably why I have taken some of the edge off when I talk to younger pastors. You have to be grasped deeply and forged in steel-like resolve to make it, and God does that work individually, uniquely and day-by-day.

The pastoral life is magnificent, but it is hard. Only the grasp of God upon your life will keep you in it. But no life is more meaningful and none more personally fulfilling. I have more on that in future reflections.

Ron Cook is retired from the faculty of Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University. He also served as pastor and interim pastor in several churches. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

This is the fourth and final article in a series focused on what Baptists can learn from the Wesleyan tradition.

Growing up as a Texas Baptist at First Baptist churches in Wichita Falls, Meridian and Waco, I knew nothing about John or Charles Wesley in general and next to nothing about Wesleyan, particularly Methodist, Christians and churches.

Over my childhood and teenage years, I occasionally would hear the need for us to “beat the Methodists to lunch at the cafeteria” after church, or an affirming description of a local Methodist minister as “Metho-Baptist.”

Beyond noting Methodists were seemingly as widespread as Baptists in my neck of the woods, however, I was woefully ignorant.

Much to my chagrin and shame, I carried an overall ignorance of Wesleyan/Methodist life and theology through university, seminary and my early professional life. Be it a lack of curiosity or being preoccupied with other matters, I was blissfully uninformed.

To be fair to myself, I had picked up a few tidbits along the way, such as:

1. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, was a tireless evangelist.
2. John’s brother, Charles, could write a hymn with the best of them.
3. United Methodists and Texas Baptists differed to some extent in theology and practice, most visibly in baptism and in the placement of pastors, including female ministers. I was also aware of differences related to communion and sanctification.

Blessings of relationships

When I came to Truett Seminary in the early 2000s, however, my awareness would begin to change over time, largely through relationships I was blessed to develop with Methodist friends.

Some of them are well known, at least in Wesleyan circles, including Ben Witherington, Steve Moore, Ryan Barnett, Leah Hidde-Gregory, L. Gregory Jones, Lacye Warner, Robert Beckham, David Watson, Kevin Watson, Sandy Richter and William “Billy” Abraham, among a number of others.

It was primarily through the rekindling of a long-lost childhood friendship with Rusty Freeman, who lived on the same street in Wichita Falls and whose older sister I had a fourth-grade crush on that was not reciprocal.

Rusty eventually would be one of the leaders in the launch of the Wesley House of Studies at Truett Seminary in the summer of 2020, helping my still-nascent knowledge of Wesleyan thought, life and practice begin to grow.

Both Jason Vickers and Scott Jones teach in Truett’s Wesley House of Studies, whose mustard seed beginnings now enrolls more than 100 degree-seeking students and more than 150 certificate program students.

I doubt I would be able to ace one of Vickers’ exams in Wesleyan theology or breeze through Jones’ class on Wesleyan history, liturgy and polity. However, through countless hours of conversation, careful observation, frequent participation in worship and some instruction, there are a few things I have found to be outstanding regarding the Wesleyan way.

A growing appreciation

1. I have been impressed and encouraged by the Truett Wesleyans’ commitment to community.

Week by week they gather for prayer and communion, and not a few participate in weekly “band meetings” or covenant/accountability groups. Such disciplines are related in no small measure to their concern for sanctification. While I never get the impression they think more highly of themselves than they ought, they are demonstrably concerned about personal and communal holiness.

2. If for Wesleyans a commitment to community is conjoined to a desire to be sanctified through and through (1 Thessalonians 5:23), vital piety is linked to a quest for spiritual knowledge and an emphasis upon the importance of biblical/theological education.

To be sure, anti-intellectualism exists in Wesleyan circles, as it does in Baptist ones. Yet, at least among the Wesleyans with whom I am most familiar and most connected, the admonition of Charles Wesley continues to ring true: “Let us unite the two so long divided, knowledge and vital piety.”

3. Additionally, I have been impressed and encouraged by the global vision and concern for evangelism among the Wesleyans I know and with whom I work most closely.

In one of his journal entries, John Wesley famously wrote:

“I look upon all the world as my parish; thus far I mean, that, in whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty to declare unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation.

“This is the work which I know God has called me to; and sure I am that his blessing attends it. Great encouragement have I, therefore, to be faithful in fulfilling the work he hath given me to do.

“His servant I am, and, as such, am employed according to the plain direction of his word, ‘As I have opportunity, doing good unto all men’; and his providence clearly concurs with his word; which has disengaged me from all things else, that I might singly attend on this very thing, ‘and go about doing good.’

4. Finally, and importantly, my Wesleyan friends have a passion for and confidence in the gospel, its proclamation and its impact for time and eternity that I have found to be compelling and contagious.

Once again, John Wesley, whose heart had been “strangely warmed,” memorably articulates such a commitment in a letter he wrote at the age of 87 to one Alexander Mather.

Wesley writes: “Give me one hundred preachers who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergymen or laymen, such alone will shake the gates of hell and set up the kingdom of heaven upon earth.”

Appreciative and still Baptist

All of this should not be construed as my saying I cross every theological “t” and dot every theological “i” where my Wesleyan/Methodist friends do (and vice versa).

I can say unequivocally, however, my life as a Baptist Christ-follower and theological scholar/educator/administrator has been enriched immeasurably by those people called Methodist, and I count many of them to be among my closest friends in the faith “delivered once for all to the saints” (Jude 3).

Todd Still is DeLancey Dean and Hinson Chair of Christian Scriptures at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this article are the responsibility of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Baptist Standard.

Editor’s Note: This is the third article in a series focused on what Baptists can learn from the Wesleyan tradition.

I came to Asbury Theological Seminary with a Baptist background and an Arminian theological orientation shaped by my upbringing as a Texas Baptist.

I had long valued the Baptist emphasis on Scripture, personal conversion and congregational life. But I hadn’t yet grasped how deeply the Christian life could be shaped by the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit and sustained through consistent spiritual practices.

In the Wesleyan tradition, I’ve encountered a vision of sanctification—being made holy—that doesn’t end at the altar call but extends into every corner of life.

At the center of this vision is a dynamic understanding of grace and a deep openness to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit. Wesleyans, like Baptists, affirm salvation by grace through faith alone. But they also emphasize that God doesn’t stop working once a person is justified. God continues shaping believers through what John Wesley called the “means of grace,” practices like Scripture reading, prayer, communion, fasting and Christian fellowship.

These aren’t works we perform to earn God’s favor; they are time-tested channels through which God pours out his transforming presence.

A holy expectancy

This idea hit home for me when I realized how often Baptists, me included, emphasize spiritual disciplines but tend to frame them mostly as duties, important, yes, but often grounded in obligation or gratitude rather than expectancy. We encourage Bible reading and prayer, but sometimes without the deep theological assumption that God will meet us in those moments—not just to inform, but to transform.

Wesley’s understanding of the means of grace helped me recover a sense of holy expectancy. Scripture became not just instruction, but encounter. Prayer became more than petition, it became participation in God’s renewing work. And the Lord’s Supper became not only a memorial but a real means through which Christ strengthens and sanctifies his people.

Wesleyan theology insists the means of grace are experienced both personally and communally. We meet God in solitude, but also through gathered worship, mutual confession and shared burdens. Fasting and intercession have their private place, but grace is never purely individual; it flows through the body of Christ.

The means of grace create a sacred rhythm, drawing us back again and again to the places where God promises to be present. They remind us that sanctification isn’t self-improvement, but surrender. Not isolation, but communion.

The ongoing work of the Spirit

Wesleyans speak boldly and expectantly about the Holy Spirit, not just in the New Testament, but here and now. In many Baptist settings, certainly in my own experience, the Spirit is affirmed in doctrine but not always emphasized in discipleship.

We believe the Spirit inspired Scripture, regenerates the heart and seals salvation. Yet we often grow cautious, even silent about the Spirit’s ongoing work of shaping us, empowering us and guiding us into deeper obedience.

Wesleyan spirituality places the Spirit front and center—not as a background presence, but as the active agent of transformation: assuring salvation, convicting of sin, gifting for mission and forming Christ within us. And the Spirit doesn’t move only in private. The Spirit inhabits worship, small groups, accountability bands and the vulnerable grace of confession. The Spirit calls the church, not just individuals, into deeper holiness.

Wesley even dared to speak of something he called “entire sanctification,” a term that can sound foreign, even suspect, to Baptist ears. But if we push past the label, the idea itself is deeply scriptural and compelling: that God doesn’t merely forgive us but can also set us free. Free from the grip and rule of sin. Free to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Free to love our neighbor not just in word but in action.

Wesley believed that through the ongoing work of the Spirit, believers could be so filled with God’s love that it governed their motives, their habits and their relationships. This was not a call to spiritual perfectionism, but to perfect love, a life wholly yielded to God.

The Spirit-empowered life

Do all Wesleyans believe in a single, instantaneous experience of entire sanctification? No. There’s a range of perspectives, just as there is among Baptists about spiritual growth and maturity.

What the Wesleyan tradition offers is a hopeful insistence that grace doesn’t stop at justification. Salvation is not only about pardon, but also about healing. Grace doesn’t merely cover sin; it restores what sin has broken.

Holiness, in this light, isn’t a burdensome list of rules or a badge of honor, it’s the fruit of divine love poured into the heart by the Holy Spirit. And that’s something all of us, Wesleyans, Baptists and every follower of Christ, can long for with joy and hope.

I now serve at a multi-denominational, evangelical seminary rooted in the Wesleyan tradition, Asbury Theological Seminary, but I haven’t left behind my Baptist roots. If anything, I’ve found them enriched.

I still long for revival. I still treasure baptism. I still believe the church should be a community of disciples on mission. But I’ve learned to see the Christian life not only as something to believe in or strive toward, but as something God empowers us to live through grace.

Baptists don’t need to become Wesleyans to benefit from these emphases. But in a time when many, especially younger Christians, are longing for depth, healing and hope, I believe we’d do well to recover a Spirit-filled vision of transformation.

According to a recent Pew Research report, the decline of Christianity in the United States may have slowed or even leveled off, but younger adults remain significantly less likely to attend church, pray regularly or say religion is very important in their lives.

This moment calls not just for better messaging, but for a deeper reality. People aren’t looking for performance, they’re looking for power. And the Wesleyan tradition reminds us that God isn’t finished with us yet.

He’s not just calling us to believe, but to become. And God has given us everything we need to grow: his Spirit, his people and his means of grace.

 Matthew Barnes serves as vice president of student life and formation at Asbury Theological Seminary. He is a former Baptist pastor and currently is pursuing ordination in the Global Methodist Church. The views expressed in this article are the responsibility of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Baptist Standard.

Editor’s Note: This is the second article in a series focused on what Baptists can learn from the Wesleyan tradition.

When I first arrived to teach theology at Truett Seminary, I became friends with an administrator who happened to be Methodist. After a few years, he was let go by the university. He told me some of the leaders of the university, presumably regents, objected to having a Methodist administrator.

The times have changed. Now the university has Methodist regents. And the seminary has a Wesleyan House of Studies. I applaud those changes. However, many Baptists still harbor prejudices against Methodists and non-Methodist Wesleyans. I hope to help them reconsider those prejudices.

I have never been a Methodist or a Wesleyan, but I have been enriched by the Wesleyan tradition. “Wesleyan” refers to any form of Christian life descended from evangelist John Wesley, founder of the Methodist tradition. “Methodist” refers to specific denominations in the Wesleyan tradition.

Not all Wesleyans are Methodists. For example, the Church of the Nazarene is Wesleyan but not Methodist. My grandparents, great-grandparents and many of my aunts and uncles were members of the Church of God, a non-Methodist but Wesleyan denomination.

Wesleyans who remain true to Wesley’s teachings have three main beliefs and practices that I, as a Baptist theologian, appreciate even if I do not fully embrace them. Such Wesleyans can be found in the United Methodist Church, the Global Methodist Church and the so-called “holiness” churches such as the Church of the Nazarene and the Church of God.

Perfected in love

First, I appreciate Wesleyans’ emphasis on the holiness of life. John Wesley wrote a little book titled A Plain Account of Christian Perfection in which he described a Christian existence “perfected in love.”

He denied sinless perfection but promoted a Christian life where the person’s heart is perfected in love with his or her motives always pure. This, he believed, is a work of the Holy Spirit and not a human achievement.

A person perfected in love loves God and loves what God loves, meaning all of creation, and never deviates from that. Such a person still will commit sins of omission and needs to repent, but he or she acts only out of love.

This is more than merely forgiven; it is forgiven and transformed. I believe many Baptists can be challenged by this Wesleyan belief.

Congregational connectionalism

Second, Wesleyans emphasize congregational connectionalism. It’s a big word that means individual congregations cooperating with each other and even being accountable to each other.

Connectionalism is worked out differently in different Wesleyan denominations, but it always means something more than congregational autonomy. Some Baptists have taken church autonomy to an extreme where the individual congregation has no real connection with sister congregations in the same conference or convention.

Wesley himself believed in a semi-episcopal form of church government with bishops. The UMC has bishops who have some authority and even power. For example, they appoint elders (pastors) to churches and they can remove them as well.

Other Wesleyan denominations experience church connectionalism differently. Some have bishops who serve not with authority but with guidance. Some have no bishops. In some, the individual congregation can freely withdraw from the denomination, taking their property with them. For the latter, connectionalism means a strong fraternity with other congregations.

I believe that many Baptists could benefit from modifying the “autonomy of the local congregation” to “fraternity among the local congregations.”

Wesleyan Quadrilateral

Third, Wesleyans have traditionally held to a four-sided model of theology where four sources and norms determine what is to be believed and taught. One Wesleyan scholar called this the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral.”

Wesley himself did not lay it out in explicit detail, but he used it anyway. It is discernible as Wesley’s theological method.

I believe many Baptists can benefit from learning about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and following it in considering and reconsidering Christian doctrines and teachings.

The Quadrilateral has four “sides,” four sources and norms. Theology is, in a sense, a conversation among them. They are Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

Many Baptists think it is possible and even desirable to go by “Scripture alone” (sola scriptura). However, there are times in Christian life and thought when Scripture does not clearly answer a question that needs to be answered. That is when tradition comes into play.

In any theological, doctrinal or ethical decision, tradition gets a vote even if not a veto over Scripture. Scripture gets the final say, but tradition, the great tradition of Christian belief, ought to be studied and taken seriously as a secondary authority. That includes, for example, the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition, the consensus of the church fathers and reformers and for American Baptists, for example, the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.

What about reason and experience? Wesley was, to use the phrase of one of his biographers, a “reasonable enthusiast.” Enthusiast means passionate believer devoted to Jesus Christ and the gospel.

In earlier times it was an epithet for Christians considered fanatical. But Wesley was a reasonable fanatic. He used reason as a tool for interpreting the Bible. So should Baptists and all Christians. Here, for Wesley and for me, reason simply refers to logic, the basic rules of logical thought and discourse such as non-contradiction.

What about experience? For Wesley, and for me, and I hope for all Baptists, experience of Jesus Christ and guidance by the Holy Spirit, under the authority of Scripture, can focus attention on matters of Christian belief and practice too long ignored or forgotten. For example, the experiences of African American Christians in America helped bring to Christians of all races and denominations a greater understanding of the dignity of every human being.

The Quadrilateral is not an equilateral. Scripture has primacy, but tradition, reason and experience can help interpret Scripture and answer questions Scripture does not answer.

These three typically, not uniquely, Wesleyan ideas enrich my understanding of the Christian faith and I recommend them for deep consideration to all Baptists and others.

Roger E. Olson is Emeritus Professor of Christian Theology at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this article are the responsibility of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Baptist Standard.

In a seminary classroom, we were studying theological anthropology when our professor shared a familiar list: courage, maturity, bravery, wisdom—traits drawn from an article by Albert Mohler president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to describe “biblical manhood.”

The list seemed admirable. But then the professor asked, “What’s wrong with this description?”

A female student offered a reply that opened my mind forever: “Why wouldn’t you want women to have these qualities?”

That question pierced through centuries of assumptions, not about biology, but about the social scripts we’ve confused with Scripture. Does the Bible really define “biblical manhood and womanhood” the way modern Christians do?

Clarifying the conversation

Scripture affirms that God created humankind as male and female (Genesis 1:27). However, terms like manhood and womanhood often extend beyond biology to encompass personality traits, cultural norms and vocational expectations. And that’s where things get murky.

Gender, as the way we express our biological sex within our cultural context, varies across history and geography. What’s considered masculine in one culture, like avoiding the color pink or wearing cargo shorts, might be feminine in another.

A man wearing a kilt in Scotland or growing long hair in ancient Israel wasn’t any less masculine. So, what are we really defending when we talk about “biblical” manhood or womanhood?

I grew up without a father. He struggled with addiction and violence, spending much of his life in and out of jail. His absence left a void. While other kids had someone to sit with at Dads and Donuts events in kindergarten, there I was sitting alone.

While my friends had an onsite masculine model, it was my mother who taught me how to mow the lawn and play catch. I learned to work hard by watching her.

She never taught me how to fix a car or grill the perfect steak. But she taught me something far better: that real strength is found in empathy, that courage often looks like quiet listening and that kindness, especially to those who don’t deserve it, isn’t weakness but witness. Her life, marked by grace and grit, shaped me more than any caricature of masculinity ever could.

That’s why I’ve never understood sexism. Gender roles didn’t define the strongest person I knew growing up, she simply lived faithfully.

Questionable blueprints

Maybe that’s why I still carry hesitation toward men’s ministries built around stereotypical masculinity. I recall attending a breakout session at church camp when I was 11 or 12 years old. The speaker said, “Men need to step up or women will take over the church, and it won’t survive.” That wasn’t a call to godly leadership. That was a call rooted in fear.

Then came the “Wild at Heart” camping trip, inspired by John Eldredge’s book. We were told to box each other and then watched three baby pigs get shot in the head so we could eat them because that, apparently, made us men.

Those moments didn’t awaken courage. They bred confusion.

Even now, I hesitate when I hear about men’s Bible studies that center around grilling, skeet shooting or “beast feasts.” Why do men and women need to study different topics, as if we’re reading different Bibles? Isn’t our shared goal to be formed into the image of Christ?

Jesus doesn’t match the macho, tough-guy exterior that often passes for masculinity today. He didn’t pretend to be invincible. He came to serve.

Philippians 2 tells us he didn’t exploit his equality with God, but emptied himself. He wept at funerals. He ate with outcasts. He healed those society deemed unworthy and included the marginalized.

Jesus painted a picture of a kingdom society in the Sermon on the Mount. “Blessed are the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers,” he said. How did we stray so far from heavenly ideals?

When Stereotypes Harm

Church leaders often say being a man means knowing how to fix things or exude dominance. I didn’t fit that mold. The jokes about “losing my man card” weren’t funny. They reinforced the idea that I wasn’t enough. But when I examine Scripture, I see something far different.

Women like Deborah, Phoebe, Priscilla and Mary were bold, wise and generous leaders in God’s redemptive story. Luke tells us that women financially supported Jesus’ ministry from their own means (Luke 8:3), not their husbands’. That challenges the notion that provision and leadership are inherently masculine traits.

The truth is, men and women need each other. In Genesis 2, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” But Adam had God. So why wasn’t that enough? Because man alone didn’t fully reflect the image of God.

God, in his wisdom, created woman, not as an assistant, but as a counterpart. The Hebrew word ezer, often translated “helper,” is frequently used to describe God himself (e.g., Psalm 121:1–2). It’s a military term implying strength, rescue and partnership. It doesn’t suggest subordination—but rather that man and woman together image God in a way neither can do alone.

Rethinking Our Go-To Passages

Passages like Proverbs 31 are often framed as the pinnacle of biblical womanhood. However, we forget that a proverbial saying is not necessarily a prescription. The biblical author describes a mother’s dream for her son’s future wife, one who leads businesses, manages a household and earns the respect of her husband and the broader community.

Instead of turning a proverb into a checklist, perhaps we men might ask, “Am I a Proverbs 31 husband?” “Do I rise to bless the women around me?” “Do I honor their strength and dignity?”

Some turn to 1 Corinthians 16:13, “act like men,” as a biblical call to masculinity. But the Greek word andrizomai simply means “be courageous.” Most modern translations, such as the NIV, CSB, and NLT, reflect this. This isn’t about gender, it’s about character.

And while men were often the dominant audience in the first century, Paul’s letters weren’t written only for them. As John Dyer’s Y’all Version helpfully notes, many of Paul’s commands are plural. They’re meant for all believers.

What God Actually Wants

If we let Jesus define true humanity, we discover something far more beautiful than Western constructs of gender. He didn’t come to reinforce cultural roles. He came to transform us into his image.

Romans 8:29 says we’re being “conformed to the image of his son.” That’s our purpose—not to be “real men” or “true women,” but to be more like Christ. And the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control—are not gendered (Galatians 5:22–23). Neither are the gifts of the Spirit.

When we force people into rigid gender scripts, we risk pushing them away from Christ rather than toward him.

A boy who loves dance more than sports may wonder if he’s truly a man. A girl who feels a desire to lead may feel out of place in the church. Scripture didn’t create these identity crises; we created them.

Rather than asking, “Am I living up to biblical manhood or womanhood?” let’s ask: “Am I faithfully following Jesus?” “Am I growing in love?” “Am I serving the church?” “Am I becoming more like Christ?”

In a world confused about gender, the church has an opportunity to return to the clarity of Christlikeness. One path leads to stereotypes and exclusion. The other leads to spiritual transformation.

The question isn’t whether we meet society’s vision of manhood or womanhood. The question is: Are we becoming more like Jesus?

Because if we are, that’s not biblical manhood or womanhood. That’s biblical discipleship.

Taylor Standridge is a Christian podcaster and producer who loves to help people understand who God is and how to live faithfully according to his goodness, grace and generosity. His writing has been featured in Peer Magazine, Christ and Pop Culture, RELEVANT Magazine and NextStep Disciple. He holds a Master of Biblical and Theological Studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

Heading into the 2025 Texas Baptist annual convention, it is time we have an honest conversation about GC2.

There is considerable confusion among Texas Baptists regarding the campaign that began in 2019, titled The Great Commandment and the Great Commission (GC2).

Who can’t get behind being about the Great Commandment and Great Commission? The Great Commandment and Great Commission should be what all churches are about and what I thought the Baptist General Convention of Texas already was doing.

GC2 now has a brand, a press, a national network, international partnerships and has created a statement of faith. In my opinion, it looks like the BGCT executive director and board are positioning the GC2 to be a competing convention with the Southern Baptist Convention as more evangelically inclusive than doctrinally driven.

Granted, that is a leap on my part, but the problem is there is so much confusion around the GC2 and getting someone to explain it is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

It seems like what I have witnessed the last few years is the Great Conflation and Great Circumvention as the Texas Baptist leadership conflates the things the convention already was doing as something new, and it would seem is methodically circumventing what could be the will of the messengers that are more closely tied to the SBC. Let me explain.

The Statement of Faith

GC2’s statement of faith surfaced in September 2021 when the Executive Board approved an initial version as a collaboration guide, not a replacement. In November 2021, messengers approved a motion to add a reference to Christ’s ascension.

In May 2022, the board reapproved the statement, amended the gender clause, and moved to present it to messengers that fall. A background document for that recommendation suggested it could be used to vet candidates for BGCT committees or scholarships. David Hardage, former executive director of the BGCT, later acknowledged that it was a misstep and called for a pause.

Despite pauses, the statement disappeared from GC2’s site and reappeared on BGCT’s “Beliefs” page as convention doctrine. Today, the BGCT Beliefs page lists the 1963 BF&M as adopted by messengers and notes the GC2 Summary of Faith as approved by the Executive Board, not by messengers.

It is my understanding that the BGCT exists to carry out the will of the messengers. If the BGCT exists to carry out the will of the churches through their messengers, shouldn’t the messengers decide whether any statement of faith speaks for all of us? There was no formal announcement, no floor debate and no vote by the messengers. The statement of faith has been approved only by the Executive Board per the BGCT website.

The Great Expansion

GC2 began inviting churches from outside Texas to affiliate. Instead of partnering through their state conventions—partnering within their state convention would be natural—these congregations now align with GC2. Perhaps they couldn’t find a theological home in their states? If Texas Baptists knew their positions, would we want to fund their ministries?

This confusion extends to finances. Many assume that every Cooperative Program dollar is divided between Texas ministries (79 percent) and the SBC (21 percent), as voted on by the messengers in 2008.

In reality, the Texas Adopted Plan sends 79 percent of receipts to BGCT missions and just 21 percent to “worldwide missions.” The BGCT’s beliefs page explains that each church decides where that 21 percent goes. It may be directed to the SBC or BGCT worldwide efforts.

For years, I’d heard BGCT representatives say, “21 percent goes to the SBC,” no caveats. When did messengers approve this arrangement? Who exactly are our worldwide partners?

With GC2 now courting out‑of‑state churches and controlling the 21 percent that used to go to SBC causes, it’s hard not to wonder whether this Great Expansion is really a Great Circumvention.

It may be a pathway to steer resources away from SBC and Cooperative Program structures toward causes many Texas Baptists have never approved. I don’t know that for certain, but the lack of clarity makes it feel less like the Great Commission and more like the Great Confusion.

GC2 strong and a larger scope

The GC2 Strong vision is about building a network without borders … and definitions. Add its own distinct staff, publishing, planting and global mission partnerships outside the SBC structure and you have something bigger than a program. Leaders may call it complementary, but the scale suggests circumvention. 

Polity and process

In Baptist life, the churches send messengers, the messengers set the direction, and the Executive Board carries it out. Boards do not have the mandate to redefine scope or reshape identity on their own. If GC2 is simply a ministry focus, fine. If it is starting to function like a parallel convention with its own partnerships, reach and doctrinal identity, then it belongs in front of the messengers.

Questions that remain

1. Why is GC2 branded separately when its mission is identical to the core work of Texas Baptists?
2. Why was its statement of faith moved into BGCT’s beliefs by the Executive Board without a public vote?
3. Is GC2 meant to supplement the SBC, replace part of it or build a separate network?
4. Does the Executive Board have the authority to set this kind of course without messenger approval?
5. Has GC2’s expansion been presented to messengers for approval of its scope and partnerships?

Great Clarity

This is not opposition to the Great Commandment or the Great Commission; it is about clarity. If GC2 is the future of Texas Baptists, we should say so out loud. Otherwise, you are circumventing the very churches you are meant to represent.

Just pushing ahead leaves the convention in Great Confusion, even if the purpose isn’t the Great Circumvention. Let us agree together on its purpose, scope and partnerships, and do it in the open. That is the Baptist way.

Kody Alvarez is the senior pastor of Oak Grove Baptist Church in China Spring. Oak Grove Baptist Church is a BGCT-affiliated church. The views expressed in this editorial are the responsibility of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Baptist Standard.

As we approach the Texas Baptists Annual Meeting Nov. 16-18 in Abilene, we are anticipating the opportunity to explore our theme: “Live Out GC2: Love God, Love People, Make Disciples.”

We hope to unpack this in our plenary sessions and in our breakouts. I plan to share more about it during my executive director’s report.

Because the GC2 focus has existed and evolved over the past 10 years, there has been some confusion about what it is. I am thankful for pastors and others who have written or called asking questions and seeking clarification.

One of my primary objectives since I became the executive director has been to provide clarity. It has been said, “clarity is kindness,” and I agree. At the same time, I want to acknowledge that we have engaged in a process where we are seeking the Lord’s direction for the future, and the truth is, we have not figured everything out yet. So, we are sharing as we are discovering.

In preparation for the annual meeting, I would like to address some of the questions we have received. I hope to expand more on these and other questions in my weekly updates as well. If you haven’t already signed up, this is your invitation to do so!

How is the current GC2 strong initiative different from previous GC2 emphases?

We are seeking fresh direction as we build on the same biblical principles. Christ has given us the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. These become timeless constants to us.

When GC2 was first conceptualized by former leadership, there was a desire to celebrate the comprehensive ministry of our convention. The work of affiliated churches and affiliated and related institutions shows love in practical ways while also sharing Christ and making disciples.

GC2 also provided a way to relate to churches and ministries beyond Texas. While the intention was not to pursue an “expansion,” it recognized the churches and ministries that desired to cooperate with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

The current GC2 Strong initiative seeks to serve all affiliated churches. We are seeking to strengthen a multiplying movement of churches that live out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission in Texas and beyond.

The problem we want to address is lostness. Over half of the population in Texas does not know Jesus as Savior and Lord. Texas is more ethnically diverse than ever before. A great number of our churches are declining, and some are closing their doors. Yet more people need Christ!

In other words, our focus is serving local churches, most of which are in Texas. We believe that if we have strong churches, strong ministers and strong missions partnerships, empowered by God’s Spirit, we can address the lostness in Texas and beyond.

Is GC2 an effort for BGCT to become a national convention as an alternative to the Southern Baptist Convention?

The simple answer is “no.” We don’t want to be a national convention. We don’t need another national convention. We also don’t desire to compete with the Southern Baptist Convention or any other Baptist body. There is too much lostness in the state, the country, and the world to think in terms of “competition.”

It is important to remember that Texas Baptists is not an agency of the SBC, though we celebrate our 138-year history of cooperating with it. Texas Baptists is an agency of Texas Baptist churches. The local church is the headquarters of our ministry. Thus, we respect the local church’s freedom to choose with whom they cooperate for the cause of missions within the Baptist family.

While the autonomy of the local church has been a long-held principle among Baptists, there was a day when churches neatly related geographically with their local association, state convention and national convention. While I liked the simplicity and efficiency of those days, not all churches follow this pattern today.

Some churches relate to a local association that is in a different part of the state. Some bypass the association and relate only to the state convention and the national convention. Yet others relate to two state conventions or two national conventions, including many of our ethnic churches. Some only relate to the local association and the state convention.

Historically, many, if not most, of our Texas Baptist churches are also affiliated with the SBC. We respect the freedom of churches in directing their Cooperative Program contributions. Some follow the 79 percent BGCT 21 percent SBC adopted plan. Some give a lower percentage to BGCT and a higher percentage to SBC. And yet others give 100 percent to BGCT.

Texas Baptists has working agreements with the North American Missions Board of the SBC for church planting in Texas and in North America, and it has a working agreement with the International Mission Board of the SBC that includes our Baptist Student Ministry Go Now Missions and our MAP missionaries. Additionally, we have a partnership with the Baptist World Alliance for work with other national Baptist conventions globally.

While we are not trying to become a national convention, we do acknowledge that our footprint has been larger than Texas for quite some time. Churches outside of Texas have affiliated with BGCT since the 1970s. Approximately half of the 70 churches outside of Texas that are affiliated with Texas Baptists are churches that were started by churches in Texas.

Even so, we do not have an expansion agenda or strategy for recruiting more churches outside of Texas. Our “expansion” strategy is to serve our existing churches as they reach the lost in their communities and around the world. The Great Commandment and the Great Commission belong to them.

We have had partnerships with national Baptist conventions for decades as we seek to live out Acts 1:8. Being witnesses in our Jerusalem, our Judea, our Samaria, and the ends of the earth is the responsibility of every believer, every church, every association, and every convention.

Living out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission do not naturally lead to our trying to work in isolation or competition with others. On the contrary, the urgency and immensity of the task call for greater cooperation with all those who are like-minded and resonate with our biblical convictions.

Are we pursuing cooperation in missions at the expense of doctrinal soundness?

Texas Baptists exist for the purpose of cooperating for missions. Together, we can do more than any church or Christian organization can do by itself. The Great Commandment and Great Commission task call for a big tent.

So how big can the tent be? Where do we drive the stakes? The answer is doctrinal affinity.

While we cherish the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local church, we choose to cooperate with those who hold to orthodox Christian doctrine and historic Baptist principles.

Doctrinal affinity is not the same as doctrinal uniformity. While there are Christian doctrines and Baptist principles that are non-negotiable, there are beliefs and practices where local churches have freedom. It is enough for a church to hold to Christian orthodoxy and historical Baptist principles in order to collaborate with Texas Baptists for the cause of missions.

A few years ago, the executive board approved the GC2 summary of faith, which was also approved and amended by the messengers to the 2021 annual meeting in Galveston. This summary was not intended to replace any statement of faith, but to express in a summary fashion the essentials for cooperation.

Because we are a big-tent convention, some believe the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message statement is controversial. Others feel that the 2000 statement is controversial. The GC2 summary was an attempt to remove some of this stigma while still communicating that we are a centrist convention. Ironically, it became controversial, too. That is why it is not presently being emphasized.

Statements of faith have been the focus of controversy for the last 40 years or so. In my opinion, while some of the concerns have been legitimate, much of the fighting has distracted us from what Christ has commanded us to do: love God, love people, and make disciples. The doctrinal controversies of the late 20th century led us to forget “Bold Mission Thrust.”

Regardless of the version of these declarations, none of them is inspired, infallible or inerrant. The only inspired, authoritative, infallible and reliable guide for faith and practice is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

That is why we do not impose any single version of The Baptist Faith and Message on our churches. It is enough for a church to affirm either the 1925, the 1963, the 2000 or a similar Baptist statement of faith in order to work together for the sake of the lost. After all, the Bible is our final authority.

Doctrinal soundness is important. Doctrinal affinity is necessary. Doctrinal uniformity distracts us from the mission of God.

There may be other questions that we will seek to answer in the coming days. If you are not already subscribed to my weekly update, you can do so here. I hope this offers greater clarity. Plan to come to our annual meeting in Abilene. Let’s watch what God can do.

Julio Guarneri is executive director of Texas Baptists. The views expressed in this article are the responsibility of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Baptist Standard.

Effective Sept. 1, every public-school classroom in Texas was to display “in a conspicuous place” a King James Version inspired listing of the Ten Commandments.

However, a federal judge recently halted implementation of the law in some districts, citing violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and the Establishment Clauses, mirroring the long history Supreme Court jurisprudence which protects conscience and free exercise, while forbidding an establishment of religion by the state.

Historical analysis of the Constitution and judicial precedent would appear to agree that the Texas law is obviously unconstitutional. So, why did Texas pass this law to begin with?

When government is controlled by one particular political and religious viewpoint, these types of laws result.

Engel v Vitale

Consider the words of the Supreme Court in Engel v Vitale (1962) when ruling on compulsory school prayer: “It is an unfortunate fact of history that when some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies.” In 2025, the same practices still occur.

Although precedent would imply the current Supreme Court will find the law unconstitutional, that is no guarantee. Instead, a broader question to consider beyond the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments law is whether the law is right and good.

Following the recent federal court’s ruling halting the implementation of the law, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is currently running for U.S. Senate, issued a statement from the attorney general’s office requiring schools to proceed with the 16 x 20 displays anyway, writing, “The woke radicals seeking to erase our history will be defeated.”

Public policy intersects with belief

Herein lies an additional problem with this law. What is the purpose? The attorney general’s reasoning seems to suggest partisan politics. Making the motivation of the law to defeat “wokeism” potentially violates one of the very commandments Texas requires be posted: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” The culture war sees no problem with using God’s word to score political points.

Mandating that schools post a particular version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom violates the consciences of teachers, administrators, students and parents, strikes a blow against religious pluralism, and establishes one particular faith practice as better than others and certainly preferred over those of no faith.

When public education, which is one of the best gifts the United States has given to the world, infringes upon religious liberty, also one of the best contributions our nation has made to the world, both suffer, which leads to individual rights being trampled by power.

As George Truett, one of the most influential Baptists of the past century, declared: “It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not believe. God wants free worshipers and no other kind.”

Requiring every public classroom to post the Ten Commandments coerces others to compliance, compels religious conformity to a particular faith, stifles dissent and allows for the usage of public tax dollars to purchase the religious posters. In every way, this law violates Truett’s call, which he based on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The importance of practicing faith

Recently, I heard a beautiful sermon on the 10th commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

The pastor connected this final commandment to our personal jealousies and struggles with contentment. He conveyed that God cares about our hearts, connecting the commandment not only to the first commandment, but also to the rich, young ruler in the New Testament.

That politician, who Jesus challenged to give away everything and follow him, went away sad, because he could not relinquish his wealth and power. We all face that temptation.

I left challenged to live out what had been preached. That is how we share the message of the Bible. We do it through our churches and then live it out in our daily lives. Not through coercion, a violation of conscience, or through governmental fiat.

Ultimately, using the coercive power of government to promote a particular faith reveals a weakness of that faith, not a strength. The problem today is not that the Ten Commandments are not posted in classrooms, it is that so many of us who profess to be believers do not practice them in our own lives.

This law is closer to taking God’s name in vain than practicing faith, teaching history, or assisting children educationally. Simply, this requirement, regardless of the ultimate court decision, is wrong.

We need to get back to our Baptist roots. Roots that value the Constitution, protect individual conscience, champion religious liberty, defend religious pluralism and refrain from forcing the posting of a religious document on a public-school wall.

In the words of George Truett: “Christ’s religion needs no prop of any kind from any worldly source, and to the degree that it is thus supported is a millstone hanged about its neck.”

Jack Goodyear is dean of Dallas Baptist University’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the Baptist Standard.

R. Keith Parks was the Knute Rockne of Baptist missions.

If you ever heard Parks preach during a missions service, you left ready to run through a wall to see the world reached for Jesus, just at the famed Notre Dame football coach was known for charging up his players for a game.

Hearing about Parks’ death Aug. 27 at 97 brought back a flood of memories about his passion for missions.

I was 22 the first time I heard Parks preach. It was the commissioning service for the Foreign Mission Board’s Journeyman class of 1982-84 after six weeks of training, or as we called it, missions boot camp. Parks had taken the helm of the FMB just two years earlier.

Our group had just sung “Hear I Am, Lord,” a song so powerful itself that we were ready to blitz the world for Jesus.

“Here I am, Lord. Is it I, Lord? I have heard you calling in the night. I will go, Lord, if you lead me.”

And then Parks ascended to the pulpit. I honestly can’t remember a word he said that night. But I’ll never forget his passion and the empathy in his voice when he talked about reaching lost people for Jesus.

Sent out

Our group of 99 young and eager missionaries spread out around the world shortly after that service. I went to Botswana for two years.

Returning to the U.S. in 1984, our Journeyman group reassembled at Glorieta Baptist Conference Center for Foreign Missions Week. That’s the second time I heard Parks preach and again, it felt like I was in a locker room getting ready to tackle the world for Christ.

I would hear him preach many more times in the coming years when he came to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary where I was a student and then later served as director of public relations.

His impact on my life and thousands of other Southern Baptists is immeasurable. Even today, reflecting on the many times I heard him preach about missions, I realize the power of his passion for missions and how it affected me.

We’ve lost one of the greatest proponents and prophets of global missions with Parks’ death, but his influence surpasses his life on earth.

Scott Collins is interim editor of the Baptist Standard. The view expressed are those of the writer and do not represent the Baptist Standard.

In today’s news, the focus is often on economic sanctions, trade tariffs and currency fluctuations, neglecting the significant challenges faced by missionaries from the Global South due to political conflicts.

While debates continue about exports and changes in interest rates, missionaries from countries like Brazil, where I am from, disproportionately are affected in their daily lives. These individuals, who are dedicated to spreading the gospel and who already live sacrificially, find themselves caught up in global power struggles.

For instance, imagine a missionary from Brazil stationed in Europe, say in Portugal, France or Germany. They receive financial support in Brazilian currency, but their expenses for rent, groceries and transportation are in euros.

One euro currently equals nearly 6.5 Brazilian reais, up from 5 since August 2022, a 30 percent devaluation of the real amount due to trade disputes and political instability. That can make their monthly living costs unmanageable. Despite receiving the same support from backers in Brazil, the equivalent amount has now significantly less purchasing power in Europe.

This isn’t an isolated incident but a common challenge affecting many families sent from the Global South who are at the forefront of pioneering missions.

The unseen consequences

1. Forced return from the mission field:

Many missionaries quietly are going back to their home countries not because they lack calling, but because they can no longer meet basic needs.

2. Emotional and spiritual strain:

Fluctuating income, often without stable support systems, leads to isolation, fatigue and sometimes disillusionment.

3. Setbacks in evangelism:

Progress made in establishing churches is hindered. With missionaries leaving, entire communities lose the steady guidance they once had.

4. Dedication of the less privileged:

Ironically, some of the most committed contributors to global missions are not wealthy donors from the north but humble believers in the south. I have personally witnessed this. Widows, domestic workers, farmers and laborers from Brazil give generously not out of abundance but out of faith.

It brings to mind the church in Philippi that Paul praised for giving beyond their means joyfully and in partnership for the gospel. He didn’t just receive financial help, but also companionship, trust and shared mission.

To churches:

1. Recognize the reality: Mission work is no longer solely from north to south. The south is rising and needs ongoing, specific support.
2. Review your financial approaches: Consider options like providing donations tied to the dollar or euro, emergency relief funds or financial education for your missionary partners.
3. Be an advocate: Raise awareness among your circles about this injustice. Trade disputes and currency policies affect spiritual endeavors too.

The Great Commission is influenced by global politics, but it can be strengthened through global cooperation. If we truly believe in a unified body, we must show it.

When one member suffers, all members suffer. And when a missionary is forced to return due to currency devaluation, the entire mission field faces setbacks.

Jair Campos is a Baptist missionary, pastor, and leadership coach from Brazil serving in Portugal. He is the executive director of Missions Connex, a nonprofit connecting churches and individuals with frontline missionaries from the Global South. The views expressed are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the Baptist Standard.