Voices: A response to Guarneri’s ‘A time for rebirth’

Associational and convention participation is very important to me. For nearly 20 years in ministry, I have seen firsthand the benefits of churches cooperating for the advancement of God’s kingdom. I believe deeply in the Cooperative Program and in what Texas Baptists can accomplish when churches work together.

With that said, I am concerned about the direction our state convention is traveling.

Change is often necessary for an organization to remain healthy and effective, but the pace, process, and scope of that change must be carefully considered. Organizational change is most effective when the people or churches who make up the organization understand it, participate in it, and believe in its direction.

Texas Baptists Executive Director Julio Guarneri rightly identifies the decline in Cooperative Program giving as a significant concern and points to declining churches, church budgets, and cooperation as contributing factors.

While true, I am convinced there is another significant factor that deserves greater attention: Many pastors and churches are finding it increasingly difficult to support an organization with which they have little direct interaction and whose administrative structure can appear disproportionate to the ministry taking place at the local level.

A simple review of the Texas Baptists organizational staff structure raises an important question: Is the current staffing model the most effective way to steward the resources entrusted through the Cooperative Program?

Perhaps it is. I recognize every position has a justification. However, when we acknowledge there has been “a multi-decade decline in Cooperative Program giving,” is it not reasonable to ask whether the organizational structure has adapted quickly enough to that reality?

Perception matters: Connection

After having conversations with pastors across the state, I believe Texas Baptist churches fall into two broad categories on this issue.

The first consists of churches genuinely struggling and declining. As these churches experience decline and financial pressure, they have less ability to contribute to the Cooperative Program.

The second consists of churches that have reduced their giving because they struggle to see the value of supporting an organization they perceive is increasingly disconnected from their local ministry context.

That second concern deserves our attention.

Whether these perceptions are accurate is not the point. The fact these perceptions exist should be the concern.

Perception matters greatly in denominational life. When churches are being asked to increase or maintain their Cooperative Program giving, they need to see clearly how those resources are being translated into ministry. They need to see their state convention knows, values, and is willing to invest in them—not simply as financial contributors, but as partners in the gospel.

How often does convention leadership engage pastors serving in small churches, rural churches, and churches with bivocational leadership? Many pastors and churches in these areas don’t feel heard or included in convention life. Their perspectives should be part of the conversation about the future of Texas Baptists.

Perception matters: Stewardship

The perception of stewardship is another area. Recently, there was an article with a photograph featuring Texas Baptist leaders meeting in what appeared to be an upscale restaurant. Perception matters. When resources are increasingly limited, churches will naturally begin asking if every dollar spent reflects the mission and priorities of the organization.

Guarneri speaks of a “time for rebirth” and of the relationship between death and new life. I believe that is an appropriate framework for considering the future of Texas Baptists.

With the current changes taking place across our convention, churches are asking why these new changes were needed, and why other, more significant changes, were not made, such as administrative changes.

Whenever an organization experiences financial pressure, difficult decisions must be made. Pastors routinely sacrifice personally so the ministries of their churches can continue. Some have accepted salary reductions or moved from full time to bivocational ministry. They believe the mission of the church is more important than their personal compensation.

That same principle should apply to Texas Baptists organizationally as they consider funding cuts to successful works across the state and organizational restructuring.

At a recent associational quarterly meeting, we learned a long-standing ministry partnership with Texas Baptists had been discontinued. This is not the first time funding to associations was reduced or eliminated, even when that supported ministry is actively engaging communities and demonstrating tangible kingdom impact.

Downsize and decentralize

So, what should the future of Texas Baptists look like? What is the answer?

One possible answer is to downsize and decentralize the organization without downsizing the mission.

When I use the word “downsize,” I am primarily referring to the administrative structure and personnel—not ministry.

Texas Baptists would benefit from a stronger regional and decentralized approach. Regional offices, staffed with limited but experienced personnel, could provide a more visible and accessible connection between the convention and local churches.

The regional offices should know the churches and pastors and work closely with the local associational leadership.

“That is what the area representative used to do,” you might say. Yes, in theory. However, the sheer size of some of their areas posed a significant challenge.

The headquarters of Texas Baptists should certainly have some centrality for efficiency and accountability, but the ministry presence of Texas Baptists should be decentralized and accessible.

We do not need the bulk of Texas Baptists staff to be located in Dallas. Some of our churches in Texas are closer to Denver than they are to Dallas. Those churches should not feel like they are on the margins of the convention.

We need to streamline administrative structures and expenditures, maximize ministry spending, and ensure the resources entrusted to Texas Baptists are directed toward the GC2 mission of Texas Baptists.

Texas Baptists should be willing to examine every aspect of the organization—including personnel and administrative structure and costs.

I believe Cooperative Program resources are still available. I believe there are churches across Texas still willing to give more if they had greater confidence their voices were being heard, and if they can see how the money is being spent on the GC2 mission.

Cooperation is a partnership

I believe in conventional cooperation. I believe in associational cooperation. I believe in churches working together for something larger than themselves.

Cooperation is a partnership. The perception of an eroding partnership means the decline in Cooperative Program giving cannot simply be attributed to church decline or a lack of generosity among churches.

Both Texas Baptists churches and the convention need to recommit themselves to the Cooperative Program, and both need to demonstrate why that partnership remains essential.

I pray Texas Baptists will recognize this moment as an opportunity—not simply to restructure, but to listen, look, and be present.

Yes, change is necessary, and some things must come to an end for something new to be born.

But the critical question for Texas Baptists is this: “Are you allowing the correct things to die so the correct things can be reborn?”

From what I am hearing and seeing across the state, many pastors and churches are not yet convinced the answer is, “Yes.”

My hope is churches and pastors will be convinced.

All for the kingdom!

Seth Pitman is the pastor of First Baptist Church in Seagraves. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.