 It happened again. A major staffing change - a Senior leader stepped down, followed by a cryptic public statement.
No moral failure No disqualifying sin A written statement - we wish the best for all involved Nothing to see here - the congregation is told. Except the smoke rising in the background. I ran across this story a few weeks back, saw some commentary on Facebook and read the weeks later unfolding story. This quote smelled familiar. “Personnel turnover is the smoke. The leadership style is the fire.” I’m not writing with any one Pastor or church in mind, but let the reader understand, I’m writing from personal experience as a staff member and a denominational consultant with several churches in mind. Their Pastors The Staff Their Board or Elder or Deacons or Committees This will be hard. THERE ARE NO PERFECT CHURCHES This goes without saying. (My Freshman English Teacher would say - then why say it?) Here’s why. Some of you may read the following with offense.You are or may be a Pastor, or a staff member or a lay leader. What follows might sting. Some of it should, you probably know it’s true-you’ve thought it during the moments when you can’t sleep or are trying to justify in your mind-to later justify to others why another staff member, board member or other church leader decided to leave, resign or is otherwise getting off the “bus.” Some of what follows, especially the parts that don’t apply to you, should roll off your back. Every church leadership structure will be impacted by our sin and imperfection. Let’s get one thing straight. We’re all sinners. This is an undisputable biblical fact. Romans 3:23 But, we forget it. And we forget this. Our sin, small, mild, big, strong, excused or hidden or running loose like a wild fire has an impact on our church, its leadership structures, our colleagues and congregations. With that in view - let’s get honest. WHEN LEADERS SIN - THE IMPACT IS FELT “When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” Proverbs 29:2 Every leader, and those who serve with them has a first day. And then, sometime after that first day the leaders and the staff together - have “one of those” days. A day in which realities become clear. The imperfections and the failures of one or both, harshness, lack of character, duplicitiness, incompetence, manipulation, unrighteous anger, just about anything that makes you think - hiring this person or taking this role might have been a big mistake. I remember in one ministry stop “my day” involved cursing and an almost physical altercation in a crowded local restaurant. I felt sick, I wanted to throw up. I’d just moved my family to a new ministry setting, this wasn’t gonna be good. I met a man, a former staff member, who, on his first day in his new role, was commanded to go into the office of another staff member and fire them. He said that was the day he started looking for a new job. He left six months later. THE QUESTION TO ASK - IS THIS A PATTERN OR IS IT A ONE OFF? We shouldn’t be held prisoner for having a bad day. We all have them. But, here me out. If the actions/reactions on that one day are disqualifying - you should absolutely be held accountable. If illegal, immoral or unbiblical, likely fired. If you have a consistent pattern of having those kinds of days, and no one is able to hold you accountable, if those days are excused away because of the pressure that you’re under or if you get a pass for unbiblical and unchristlike behavior from those who should hold you accountable - you’re not getting what you deserve. Please note: what I’m speaking about here is not a single day. But, observable behaviors, over time, which reveal consistent patterns consistent with your character, how you perform and how you treat others. A SURE SIGN OF SMOKE If the organization has had a lot of churn and burn, if it has a high turnover rate, if every departure is the departing staff member’s fault, if they are spoken of negatively after they’ve left ... .publically and privately… And…. The immediate supervisor: Be it a Senior Leader, Team Leader or department Head along with the Board always seem to stay in place and take no participatory responsibility in the churn. It’s definitely a pattern. Constant reorganizations, new hiring practices, new upper and middle management with short tenures all betray this reality: This organization, business or church is likely toxic. If they say they are just the victim of “bad hiring” how many times can that excuse be employed? They are either are incompetentent or toxic. THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROTECT THE PERSON, BRAND OR ORGANIZATION If a church or organization is built on the cult of personality, platform skills or notoriety of the public person, if its durability is tied to their executing their craft, accountability will be difficult. Why? That key person is seen as the engine, the glue, the product or commodity. The fear-if that staff member, that key leader disappears everything ends. Faith in God to build his church - by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus - absent. Perhaps that’s why some of these churches fall like a house of cards when the key person falls. What is built on man always falls - because God doesn’t share his Glory. Back to the accountability part. A leader like this often flies at an altitude that rises above concerns and is not subject to regular or real accountability. Perhaps out of fear, sometimes it's because the leader has manipulated the system. Toxic leaders are experts at sniffing out and creating “blind loyalty” among those who orbit them. They trade favors, access, positions and attention to gain sure footing and shun real accountability. Then they position those paid for such loyalty in places where they will protect them and their behavior and performance from scrutiny. One leader I’m familiar with surrounded himself with others who formed a shield insulating him from real evaluation and legitimate critique. He spiritualized his position and role adding an extra layer of protection - his guardians learned to say; “only God can hold him accountable.” IN A SYSTEM LIKE THIS - CLASHES ARE IS INEVITABLE, CRASHES ARE CERTAIN Be it the leader or the church, one day it will all come crashing down. Here’s why. The inner circle is always in flux. Sooner or later people start to wake up. The once devoted become disillusioned, they “defect” by asking real questions. They are met with sharp resistance, if they persist they are ousted, blackballed, reorged and removed. An ever changing inner circle will eventually grow weak - the sharpest leaders will leave the church, what remains is a group with less history, competency and capacity. The Leader grows confident, complacent and cocky. In this season, they will eventually make a mistake, a fatal one, leading to their fall. Another potential scenario is the leader finally being held to account. The accountability group, be it a committee, a Board, Elders, Deacons or eventually the Congregation has enough. If it’s one of the former smaller groups they’ve likely been having conversations, interviews with those hurt by the leader and the system and they’ve been working behind the scenes to remedy what’s broken so that health and vitality can be achieved. When it's the congregation holding a toxic leader accountable the hurt and harm will break out like wildfire. And after a structure is burned - it often crashes. THE RECOVERY — WHAT MAKES IT HARD, WHAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE Recovery begins with honesty.
A church cannot recover from what it refuses to name. If leaders have sinned, the sin must be acknowledged. If people have been mistreated, their experiences must be heard. If a pattern has developed, it must be evaluated as a pattern—not dismissed as a collection of unrelated misunderstandings, personality conflicts or unfortunate departures. This is where recovery often stalls. The leaders responsible for addressing the problem are sometimes the same leaders who ignored it, enabled it or benefited from it. They may have protected the leader, defended the system or participated in keeping the congregation in the dark. They may now be asked to evaluate decisions in which they were deeply invested. That is difficult. It may require them to admit:
Those admissions are costly—but necessary. There can be no real recovery without a true evaluation of everyone in leadership. Not only the senior leader. Not only the person whose resignation made the news. The board, elders, deacons, personnel committee, executive staff and others who held meaningful responsibility must also be evaluated. What did they know? When did they know it? What did they do? What did they fail to do? Did they ask hard questions? Did they investigate concerns? Did they silence or discredit those who raised them? Did they confuse protecting the church with protecting the leader? Did they participate in severance agreements, confidentiality demands or carefully constructed public statements that kept the congregation from understanding what had actually happened? These are not pleasant questions. But without them, the church may remove one person while leaving the entire enabling system intact. And if the system remains, the problem will return. It may return with a different leader, a different title and a different set of victims—but it will return. THE SYSTEM MUST BE EXAMINED Toxic cultures are rarely created by one person alone. A destructive leader may be the fire, but systems provide the fuel and oxygen. Recovery requires evaluating the processes that allowed misconduct, manipulation, incompetence or abusive leadership to continue unchecked. That evaluation should include:
THE CONGREGATION MUST BE TOLD THE TRUTH There are legitimate limits to what can be shared publicly. Personnel matters require wisdom. Victims deserve privacy. Legal counsel may properly advise restraint. Not every detail belongs in a congregational meeting or public statement. But confidentiality must not become concealment. There is a difference between protecting private information and deliberately keeping a congregation in the dark. Church members do not need every detail, but they do need the truth. They need to know whether there was misconduct. They need to know whether a pattern existed. They need to know whether leaders failed to act. They need to know what has changed. They need to know how future concerns will be handled. They need to know that the church values truth more than institutional reputation. Cryptic statements create suspicion because people can smell smoke. They see the sudden resignations.
Then they are told there is nothing to see. That approach does not protect trust. It destroys it. Trust is not rebuilt by asking people to stop asking questions. Trust is rebuilt by leaders giving honest answers. THOSE WHO WERE HURT MUST BE HEARD A church cannot recover while continuing to marginalize the people who experienced the harm. Former staff members should be contacted. Departed leaders should be interviewed. Those who raised concerns should be heard again—this time without defensiveness. Patterns often become visible only when multiple stories are placed beside one another. What was previously dismissed as one disgruntled employee may be revealed as a repeated pattern.
Listening does not mean accepting every allegation without examination. Claims must be tested. Facts must be verified. People can misremember, exaggerate or misunderstand. But dismissing every negative account as bitterness is not discernment. It is avoidance. Healthy leaders do not fear honest evaluation. They welcome it because they care more about truth and holiness than reputation and position. REPENTANCE MUST BE SPECIFIC Churches often use the language of grace to avoid the work of repentance.
All of those statements can be true—and all of them can be misused. Biblical repentance is not vague.
A leader who says, “Mistakes were made,” has not necessarily repented. A board that says, “We could have communicated better,” may be minimizing a far deeper failure. A church that asks wounded people to forgive while refusing to tell the truth is demanding reconciliation without repentance. That is not grace. It is spiritual manipulation. Forgiveness does not eliminate accountability. Grace does not make leadership qualifications optional. Restoration to fellowship does not automatically mean restoration to office. A leader may be forgiven and still be disqualified from leadership. A leader may repent and still need to resign. A board member may be sincere and still need to step down because he repeatedly failed in his responsibility to protect the church. Consequences are not the enemy of grace. Sometimes consequences are the means by which grace produces genuine change. SOME LEADERS WILL NEED TO LEAVE This is one of the hardest realities of recovery. Sometimes removing the senior leader is not enough. Those who enabled, concealed or repeatedly excused the behavior may also need to leave their positions. This does not mean every person who missed something must be removed. Leadership requires discernment.
But when governing leaders have lost the trust of the congregation, refuse honest evaluation or remain committed to the old system, their continued presence may prevent recovery. The church must be willing to ask whether those who led it into dysfunction are capable of leading it into health. Sometimes they are. Often they are not. A title does not create the right to remain in leadership. Neither longevity, loyalty, generosity nor friendship exempts someone from accountability. INDEPENDENT HELP MAY BE NECESSARY Churches in crisis often believe they can fix themselves. Sometimes they can. Often they cannot. The relational history is too complicated. The alliances are too strong. The fear is too great. The facts are too contested. The leaders are too invested. Outside help may be necessary. A qualified denominational leader, church consultant, investigator, attorney, counselor or conflict specialist can bring perspective that insiders lack. The key word is independent. An outside advisor who is personally loyal to the leader, financially dependent on the church or committed to protecting the institution may only reinforce the problem. The church needs people willing to ask hard questions, follow the evidence and tell the truth—even when the truth is costly. This may involve:
Outside help is not an admission that the church has failed beyond repair. It is an admission that humility is necessary. RECOVERY TAKES LONGER THAN PEOPLE WANT A toxic culture can be created over years. It will not be repaired in a few weeks.
Recovery is slow because trust is rebuilt through repeated evidence. People need to see that concerns are now taken seriously. Staff members need to see that speaking honestly no longer results in retaliation. The congregation needs to see that leaders tell the truth even when it is embarrassing. Future leaders need to be evaluated for character, not merely charisma. Accountability structures need to function before the next crisis, not be invented during it. The church must learn that health is not measured only by attendance, giving, baptisms, buildings, influence or online reach. A church can be growing numerically while decaying spiritually. It can appear successful and still be deeply unhealthy. It can celebrate public victories while privately crushing people. Recovery requires redefining success. WHAT MAKES RECOVERY POSSIBLE Recovery is possible when leaders fear God more than they fear public embarrassment.
And ultimately, recovery is possible because the church belongs to Jesus.
Jesus is the head of the church. He is not threatened by the truth. He is not honored by concealment. He is not glorified when leaders use spiritual language to protect themselves. He is glorified when sin is confessed, when justice is pursued, when the wounded are cared for and when his people walk in the light. DO NOT WASTE THE FIRE When the smoke finally clears, the temptation will be to rebuild quickly. Get back to normal. Hire someone new. Restore attendance. Reassure donors. Quiet the critics. Move forward. But returning to normal may mean returning to the very culture that produced the crisis. The goal should not be normal. The goal should be health. Do not waste the fire by rebuilding the same structure with different names. Do not replace one charismatic leader with another while leaving accountability unchanged. Do not punish those who spoke up and reward those who remained loyal to dysfunction. Do not confuse silence with unity. Do not confuse survival with recovery. Do not confuse a full room with a healthy church. The smoke was a warning. The fire revealed what the church had refused to see. The collapse exposed what was structurally unsound. Now there is an opportunity to rebuild differently. More honestly. More humbly. More biblically. More carefully. With real accountability. With qualified leaders. With clear processes. With a congregation that understands what happened. With care for those who were harmed. And with confidence—not in a personality, platform or brand—but in Jesus Christ, who loves his church enough to expose what is hidden and graciously call his people back into the light. .
0 Comments
 This Week's Big Signal
The clearest signal this week is that renewal work is becoming more concrete and more equipping-oriented. The strongest recent examples are not flashy growth stories; they are tools, gatherings, and models aimed at helping ordinary churches build actual ministry capacity: Lifeway's discipleship micro-conference and DisciplesPath tool, NAMB's Replant Summit, the Send Network replant and renewal pathway, and Baptist Press's report on churches serving people trapped in addiction. That matters because many churches no longer need another broad call to "get healthy." They need a trustworthy next step: a discipleship audit, a replant readiness process, a leadership-development pathway, a worship leader training environment, or a community-facing ministry that moves from compassion to Bible immersion and baptism. The week also shows a shift in tone. Revitalization is being framed less as a verdict on struggling churches and more as an invitation to honest assessment, courage, and practical obedience. One qualifier matters. Much of this evidence comes from denominational reports, ministry platforms, and practitioner reflections. These are useful field signals, not neutral academic proof that a method will work everywhere. The durable takeaway is not "copy this event" or "adopt this model." It is that churches in renewal need measurable pathways for discipleship, leadership, worship, mission, and community engagement. Trends for Leaders to Notice
What's Overhyped The overhyped narrative is that the next conference, tool, or assessment will solve church decline by itself. Tools are helpful when they force honesty and action. They become noise when churches collect them without changing calendars, leadership habits, member expectations, or ministry priorities. Where the Greatest Opportunity ExistsThe greatest opportunity right now is to build renewal around clear pathways instead of vague burden. A pastor can begin by asking five plain questions: How do we know whether people are becoming disciples? Where are leaders being developed? How are we caring for weary ministry servants? Which people in our community are we actually moving toward? What is the next faithful step we can take in 30 days? For Southern Baptist and non-denominational churches, the most actionable move is to pair spiritual honesty with practical design. Use a discipleship assessment. Train ministry leaders, not just the senior pastor. Name whether the church needs revitalization, fostering, adoption, or replanting. Build pathways for new believers and struggling people before the church asks for more growth. Associations, state conventions, and renewal consultants can serve churches best by helping them move from shame to clarity. The right posture is pastoral invitation: tell the truth without contempt, honor the church's history without being trapped by it, and give leaders a next step small enough to begin but serious enough to matter. The work of renewal is rarely dramatic in the moment. It is usually slow, honest, prayerful, and patient. But week by week, the churches that face reality, stay on mission, and take faithful next steps are the ones most likely to see lasting fruit. Sources: Lifeway Research, "State of Discipleship Insights Report equips leaders for intentional disciple making"; Baptist Press, "Lifeway discipleship micro-conference equips, encourages church leaders"; Baptist Press, "Worship micro-conference attendance, enthusiasm projects bright days ahead"; Send Network, "Replant Summit"; Baptist Press, "Arizona, California churches preach freedom from addiction"; Baptist Press, "Revitalization is not a label; it is an invitation"; Graphs About Religion archive  Every once in a while, a public debate begins to drift so far into the world of headlines, institutions, investigations, and convention politics that we forget the people living beneath those headlines.
I fear that is happening again in the Southern Baptist Convention. In recent days, I have heard and read respected voices suggesting there really was not a sexual abuse crisis in the SBC. The Department of Justice closed its investigation. No sexual-abuse-related charges were filed against the SBC, the Executive Committee, or SBC entities. Therefore, some have concluded that the crisis itself was exaggerated, politicized, weaponized, or even invented. I understand why that conclusion may be attractive to some. It is also incomplete. Southern Baptists should be careful with our words. We should not imply criminal guilt where prosecutors did not bring charges. We should not make accusations that cannot be substantiated. We should not continue speaking as if the DOJ found something it did not find. Truth requires that kind of honesty. But truth requires something else as well. The absence of federal criminal charges is not the absence of a crisis. Those are two different questions. The Department of Justice was asking whether federal crimes had been committed. Southern Baptists must ask a much deeper question. Were children, students, women, and vulnerable people harmed in churches connected to our Convention? Were survivors sometimes ignored, dismissed, or left to carry their pain alone? Did some churches fail to respond wisely, promptly, biblically, or legally? Have pastors, leaders, volunteers, and trusted church figures committed abuse or misconduct? The answer to all of the above? Yes, without hesitation. Those realities do not disappear because a federal investigation concluded without charges. The HeadlinesThe DOJ investigation matters. When a federal investigation closes without charges, that should be stated clearly and fairly. It is not a small thing. It matters for the SBC, the Executive Committee, those who were under investigation, and the broader public record. No one should speak carelessly about that. But a legal conclusion is not the same thing as a moral conclusion. A prosecutor’s decision not to file charges does not mean every decision was wise, every survivor was treated well, every church responded faithfully, every policy was sufficient, or every leader acted with courage. Courts answer legal questions. Churches answer moral ones. Our standard has never been merely, “Did we avoid criminal prosecution?” Our standard must be, “Did we honor Christ, protect the vulnerable, tell the truth, care for the wounded, and act with integrity?” Those are not always the same question. The Crisis Behind the Headlines Practically speaking, as an associational leader, I have dealt with four separate instances of abuse allegations in my first two years serving in this role. Our association includes approximately 150 churches. Those four situations are simply the ones I know about. Like every associational leader understands, we are not aware of every crisis that occurs in every autonomous congregation. But I can say this with confidence: every one of those situations was a crisis—affecting victims and their families, the accused (whether allegations were substantiated or not), confirmed perpetrators facing consequences, church leaders under pressure, congregations seeking understanding, concerned parents, volunteers and staff caught in turmoil, the surrounding community, and ultimately our corporate witness. That is the part I fear is being swept aside in the careless rhetoric that now says there is no sexual abuse crisis in the SBC. Those making that claim may be speaking institutionally. But those who have been directly impacted are not thinking institutionally. They are thinking personally—about the phone call they never wanted to receive, the meeting they never imagined attending, the trust that was broken, the child who was harmed, the survivor who finally spoke, and the church that may never be the same. Any instance of abuse is a crisis. Those who have been directly impacted will tell you. Two Errors We Must Avoid The first error is exaggeration. Not every SBC church is unsafe, not every pastor has failed, not every allegation is true, not every leader acted wrongly, and not every concern should be turned into an institutional indictment. We must be careful, truthful, and just. The second error is dismissal. We must not say that because the DOJ filed no charges, there was no crisis, nor assume that because most churches have not experienced a public abuse allegation, the problem is not serious. We must also resist the idea that decentralization removes our responsibility to help churches prepare, or that institutional relief should lead to pastoral indifference. Both errors damage our witness. Exaggeration destroys trust. Dismissal deepens wounds. Southern Baptists should reject both. The Better Question The question before us should not be, “Was there a crisis?” For victims, families, churches, leaders, communities, and our witness, the answer is yes. The better question is, “What kind of people will we be now?”
Jesus does not treat the wounded as interruptions. He moves toward them. The church should do the same. Responsible Reform This is where I believe Southern Baptists should place our energy. Not in relitigating every headline. Not in pretending the problem was invented. Not in speaking as though every church is guilty. But in educating, equipping, and training churches to prevent abuse and respond rightly when allegations arise. The SBC Executive Committee’s Fortify Initiative is a good and needed step in that direction. It is designed to help associations, state conventions, and local churches strengthen abuse prevention and response. That is exactly the kind of work we need more of, not less. Associations can play a meaningful role here.
We can also point churches toward good written resources, including materials such as Handling Allegations in Ministry, the SBC Abuse Prevention and Response resources, Essentials training, state convention resources, MinistrySafe, and other trusted tools that help churches move from general concern to practical readiness. The goal is not to create fearful churches. The goal is to create faithful, prepared, clear, and courageous churches—churches that love children enough to protect them, survivors enough to hear them, truth enough to investigate carefully, justice enough to report properly, and the gospel enough to refuse cover-ups, shortcuts, and silence. Our WitnessThis issue is not a distraction from the Great Commission. It is directly connected to our witness.
The world is watching. But more importantly, the Lord is watching.
So yes, let us speak accurately about the DOJ investigation. Let us not say it found what it did not find. Let us not assign criminal guilt where charges were not brought. But let us also refuse to say the absence of federal charges means there was no crisis. The legal investigation may have concluded. Our responsibility has not. The crisis behind the headlines is not merely institutional.
And for those who have lived through it, it is very real. Southern Baptists should be the last people to explain that away. A weekly roundup of revitalization, replanting, and church renewal insights and news.
This Week's Big Signal The clearest signal this week is that renewal leaders are being pushed beyond "come and see" ministry toward deliberate, embodied mission in the neighborhood. Baptist Press published Todd Gray's June 29 argument that every church already has a "come and see" strategy but many need a "go and tell" strategy, including door-to-door evangelism where it fits the context. NAMB's annual meeting report carried the same basic conviction from the denominational side: five consecutive years of rising Southern Baptist baptisms did not happen by accident, but because churches made evangelism a priority and equipped people to live on mission. That matters because this signal is not just about evangelistic technique. It is about what churches count as health. Karl Vaters' June 30 ChurchLeaders piece warned against treating fuller rooms as the win, and Gary Moritz's June 16 reflection on 70 years of church growth pressed the sharper question: are churches making disciples or attenders who need churches to keep producing for them? The Unstuck Group's July 1 case study of City Church in Fort Wayne adds a live example: rapid growth can be healthy when groups, serving, baptisms, and leadership engagement keep pace with attendance. One qualifier matters. Several of these sources are practitioner commentary or case examples, not broad representative studies. City Church's story is not a plug-and-play model, and door-to-door evangelism will not work equally in every setting. Still, the convergence is useful: renewal is not nostalgia for full sanctuaries. It is the recovery of sent people who can share the Gospel, disciple new believers, and love the actual neighbors around them. Trends for Leaders to Notice
What's Overhyped The overhyped narrative is that renewal can be measured mainly by whether attendance is rising again. Rising attendance may be a gift, but it can also hide weak discipleship, thin evangelism habits, or an inward-facing culture. The better question is whether the church is sending more faithful witnesses into ordinary life. Where the Greatest Opportunity Exists The greatest opportunity right now is to rebuild churches around sentness: members who know the Gospel, can speak it naturally, serve neighbors credibly, and help new believers mature quickly. For pastors, that means auditing the church's actual missionary habits, not just its calendar. Where are members already in contact with unchurched neighbors? Who is training them? What happens after someone professes faith? Who teaches brand-new believers how to read Scripture, pray, resist temptation, and join the mission? For Southern Baptist and non-denominational churches, this is a practical second-half-of-2026 opportunity. Pair outreach with formation. If the church hosts a community event, build follow-up before the event begins. If members go door-to-door, train them not only to speak but also to listen, pray, and disciple. If baptisms increase, assume the church will need a more robust pathway for new believers, not just a better celebration Sunday. Associations, networks, and renewal consultants can help churches by moving the conversation from "How do we get more people to come?" to "How do we equip our people to go, tell, serve, and disciple?" That question works for a small rural church, a neighborhood replant, a suburban church with attendance momentum, or a multiethnic congregation in a fast-changing city. The methods will differ. The missionary posture should not. The work of renewal is rarely dramatic in the moment. It is usually slow, honest, prayerful, and patient. But week by week, the churches that face reality, stay on mission, and take faithful next steps are the ones most likely to see lasting fruit. Sources
A weekly roundup of revitalization, replanting, and church renewal insights and news.
This Week's Big Signal The clearest signal this week is that churches are seeing signs of participation without the same evidence of deep formation or sustainable capacity. Lifeway Research's new generational analysis of its State of Discipleship work found that Gen Z churchgoers are often highly present: the average Gen Z churchgoer attends 6.2 worship services a month, and 36 percent say they have regular responsibilities at church. But the same research says Gen Z lags other generations in exercising faith, living unashamed, and agreement with key theological beliefs. That matters because renewal leaders can easily over-celebrate activity. A returning young adult, a busy volunteer, or a full calendar is not the same thing as resilient discipleship. The Unstuck Group's June 24 staffing report points to a related organizational issue: churches may respond to busyness by hiring more "doers" instead of developing leaders and volunteer teams. Participation has to become formation, and activity has to become shared ownership. One qualifier matters. Lifeway's Gen Z data is drawn from Protestant churchgoers who attend at least monthly, so it does not describe all Gen Z Americans. The Unstuck Group's staffing data comes from 239 churches connected to its network, with an average attendance around 917, so it should be read as directional rather than representative of every church. Still, the convergence is useful: renewal work needs more than attendance gains. It needs formation, leadership development, and structures that do not exhaust the same faithful few. Trends for Leaders to Notice
What's Overhyped The overhyped narrative is that renewed attendance among younger adults automatically means the discipleship crisis is easing. It may be a genuine opportunity, but it is not yet proof of deep spiritual health. Presence is a doorway. Formation is the work. Where the Greatest Opportunity Exists The greatest opportunity right now is to build churches that know how to turn presence into formation and formation into shared ministry ownership. For pastors and renewal teams, the practical questions are simple but demanding: Who is showing up more often than before? Who is serving but not being discipled? Who has evangelistic zeal but shallow doctrine? Who is doing ministry tasks that should become team-based ownership? For Southern Baptist and non-denominational churches, this creates a strong second-half-of-2026 agenda. Use Lifeway's discipleship framework or a similar local tool to assess whether people are growing in belief, practice, relationships, witness, and perseverance. Then use a staffing-and-volunteer audit to ask whether the church is building people or simply employing people to keep the machine running. Associations, networks, and consultants can help churches by pairing discipleship assessment with capacity mapping. A church may not need another program first. It may need to identify five younger adults for intentional mentoring, three overloaded staff roles that need volunteer teams, one worship or next-gen leader who needs coaching, and one clear doctrinal pathway for new and returning believers. The work of renewal is rarely dramatic in the moment. It is usually slow, honest, prayerful, and patient. But week by week, the churches that face reality, stay on mission, and take faithful next steps are the ones most likely to see lasting fruit. Sources
 One of the most common mistakes pastors, church leaders, and change agents make is believing that every obstacle can be overcome through enough conversation.If we explain it better.
That assumption sounds noble. It feels pastoral. It feels patient. It is also frequently wrong. Over the years I have watched pastors spend months—and sometimes years—trying to reason with people who were never actually seeking understanding. The result is usually frustration, exhaustion, stalled progress, and leadership paralysis. The challenge is that Christian leaders are called to be patient, gracious, and willing to teach. Yet Scripture also repeatedly warns us that not every person is operating from a posture of wisdom. One of the most important leadership lessons a pastor can learn is this: Not every objection is a request for understanding. Some objections are expressions of deeper realities that information alone cannot solve. Wisdom Literature Warns Us The Book of Proverbs repeatedly distinguishes between the wise and the fool. The wise person can be instructed. The fool cannot. Proverbs 9:8 says: "Do not rebuke a scoffer, or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you." The issue is not intelligence. It is posture. The wise person receives correction because truth matters more than ego. The scoffer rejects correction because self-protection matters more than truth. Proverbs 23:9 goes even further: "Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words." That verse is uncomfortable for leaders because it suggests there are moments when continued explanation is not productive. The problem is not clarity. The problem is receptivity. Perhaps the most famous passage appears in Proverbs 26:4-5: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." At first glance those verses seem contradictory. They are not. The wisdom lies in discerning which situation you are facing. Sometimes engagement merely drags you into endless circular arguments. Sometimes silence allows foolishness to go unchallenged. Wisdom is knowing the difference. Leadership requires that discernment. Jesus Did Not Answer Every Question Many pastors operate as though every concern deserves an answer. Jesus did not. At times He engaged deeply. At other times He asked questions. At other times He remained silent. When Herod questioned Him before the crucifixion, Luke records: "He made no answer." Jesus understood that some questions are genuine and some are performative. Some people seek truth. Others seek ammunition. The difference matters. One of the most exhausting mistakes leaders make is treating every critic as if they are a sincere seeker. Not all are. The Leadership Trap Leadership development literature describes this as a common failure among change leaders. When resistance emerges, leaders often assume a communication problem exists. So they increase communication. John Kotter's change research demonstrated that resistance often has little to do with information and much more to do with perceived loss. People resist because they fear losing:
What appears to be a disagreement about strategy is often a disagreement about loss. This is especially true in churches. Rarely is the conflict really about the color of the carpet, worship style, service time, facility use, governance revision, or ministry structure. Those issues are usually symbols. The deeper issue is often fear.
Until leaders recognize that reality, they will continue trying to solve emotional problems with informational solutions. That never works. Organizational Psychology Explains Why Organizational psychologists have long observed that facts rarely change minds when identity feels threatened. When people perceive that change threatens something they value deeply, they often become more entrenched rather than more open. This phenomenon is known as identity protection. The more evidence presented, the stronger the resistance may become. That explains why some church members seem to become less persuadable the longer conversations continue. The discussion is not actually about the proposal. The discussion is about preserving a worldview. The proposal merely triggered the fear. Leaders often waste tremendous energy attempting to win an argument that was never really about the argument. What Hostage Negotiators Know Perhaps surprisingly, hostage negotiators understand something many church leaders do not. People rarely move because they are defeated logically. They move because they feel understood emotionally. The first objective in negotiation is not persuasion. It is understanding. Skilled negotiators spend far more time listening than arguing.
Only then can movement occur. That principle has enormous value in church leadership. When resistance emerges, wise leaders ask:
Those questions often reveal far more than another hour of debate. However, negotiators also understand something equally important. Not everyone can be persuaded. Some individuals become psychologically committed to a position. At that point the goal shifts from persuasion to management. Church leaders must learn the same lesson. Symptoms Are Not Causes One of the most valuable insights from organizational diagnosis is the distinction between symptoms and causes. Resistance is usually a symptom. It is not the diagnosis. The visible objection may point toward deeper realities such as:
Wise leaders diagnose before prescribing. Many churches attempt to overcome resistance by increasing activity. The real need may be repentance.
The wrong diagnosis always produces the wrong treatment. Knowing When to Stop Arguing There comes a point when continued debate ceases to be productive. Paul instructed Timothy: "Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels." (2 Timothy 2:23) Notice that Paul did not say avoid all disagreement. He said avoid quarrels that produce no fruit. Some conversations generate understanding. Others simply recycle conflict. Wise leaders learn to distinguish between the two.
At some point leadership requires making a decision and moving forward. A Leadership Question Worth Asking When facing resistance, pastors should ask themselves: Am I dealing with someone who wants understanding or someone who wants control? Those are very different situations.
Failing to recognize the difference can consume years of ministry. The Final Word Patience is a Christian virtue. So is discernment. Pastors should be willing to listen carefully, answer honestly, teach faithfully, and love generously. But Scripture never calls leaders to become trapped in endless cycles of unproductive reasoning. The wisdom literature teaches that some people can be instructed and some cannot. Jesus demonstrated that not every challenge requires an answer. Paul warned against foolish controversies. Leadership research confirms that resistance is often driven by fear rather than a lack of information. Organizational psychology reminds us that identity is frequently the real issue. Negotiation experts teach us to attempt to understand motivations before seeking to persuade. Taken together, these lessons reveal an important truth:
Need a one page coaching sheet? Download one here: Diagnosing Conflict  Every leader inherits a culture before they ever shape one.
Walk into a church, business, nonprofit, or staff team and you immediately step into an existing system of values, behaviors, assumptions, loyalties, fears, habits, and power dynamics that were formed long before you arrived. Some of it is visible. Much of it is not. That’s why leadership transitions are rarely just about vision. They are about culture. New leaders often assume they are stepping into a blank slate. They aren’t. They are stepping into a living system that has already trained people how to think, respond, communicate, handle conflict, process change, and protect what matters most to them. And here’s the reality many leaders underestimate: as a new leader, you are initially an outsider to that culture. You may sense it quickly, but it will take time to fully understand it. It will take even longer to shape it. Where values differ - culture clashes occur Wherever your leadership differs from the established culture, tension will surface. That tension is not always unhealthy. In fact, it often reveals where the real leadership work begins. Every culture initially responds to change by protecting itself. Healthy cultures protect clarity, trust, accountability, humility, and mission alignment. Unhealthy cultures protect control, comfort, fear, tradition, personalities, and power structures. And the people who have acclimated to the existing culture will usually react when someone attempts reshaping it into something different. Some will celebrate the change because they’ve quietly longed for healthier leadership and healthier systems for years. Others will feel threatened because healthy culture exposes unhealthy patterns. And some will resist strongly simply because the organization has not experienced meaningful cultural change in a very long time. That resistance becomes even stronger when informal leaders—not healthy shepherds or healthy executives—have historically shaped the culture. The Strongest Voices Shape the Culture Organizations function best when healthy leaders intentionally shape culture. But when leadership is passive, unclear, fearful, aloof, overly accommodating, or unable to lead, someone else eventually fills the vacuum. The strongest voices in the system begin setting the tone. In churches, this happens constantly. A previous pastor may have occupied the office without truly shaping the culture. Over time, the culture was cast by a founding family, a dominant donor, a long-time deacon, an influential staff member, or an informal coalition of power brokers. Eventually those individuals stop seeing themselves merely as participants in the culture and begin functioning as guardians of it. You usually discover this quickly as a new leader. The culture caretaker will eventually let you know when you are violating the accepted norms of the system: “This isn’t how we do things here.” And often what they are really protecting is not theology or mission, but familiarity, influence, control, or emotional comfort. Systems naturally preserve themselves until healthy leadership intentionally guides them toward something better. New Culture Cannot Be Forced One of the great mistakes leaders make is trying to force cultural change through authority alone. That approach may create temporary compliance, but it rarely produces lasting health. In the workplace, leaders often possess formal leverage to enforce culture: employee write-ups, negative reviews, demotions, and ultimately termination. Culture in many organizations is maintained through policy enforcement and positional authority. But the community of faith is different. Pastors are not merely CEOs with sermons. Shepherding people is fundamentally different from managing employees. The call of a pastor is not to dominate, intimidate, manipulate, or demand personal allegiance because he occupies the highest seat in the organizational chart. The New Testament presents something far more challenging. Philippians 2 presents Christ as the servant King who humbled Himself. First Peter 5 instructs pastors not to domineer over those entrusted to their care, but to become examples to the flock. Ephesians 5 calls believers to be filled with and led by the Spirit. Second Timothy 3 reminds us that Scripture itself forms, corrects, trains, and shapes the people of God. That means healthy church culture is not built primarily through force, pressure, policy, or positional power. It is shaped patiently through example, truth, humility, courage, consistency, prayer, repentance, and the steady application of God’s Word over time. Certainly pastors must lead with conviction. Healthy shepherds do not avoid hard conversations, clarity, accountability, or courageous decisions. Effective Christian leadership is not driven by ego, insecurity, intimidation, or control. It increasingly reflects the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Those are not weak leadership traits. They are culture-shaping forces. Healthy Culture Must Be Built Intentionally Good culture does not happen by accident. It takes time, consistency, repetition, clarity, and intentional leadership. Leaders must consistently reinforce:
And for Christian leaders, those values cannot simply come from personality preferences, corporate leadership trends, or branding language. They must be grounded in Scripture. The Word of God does not merely shape doctrine. It shapes culture. If a church claims to be biblical but its culture is dominated by fear, gossip, manipulation, control, passivity, selfish ambition, territorialism, or constant division, something is deeply broken regardless of how polished the platform appears on Sunday morning. Healthy church culture should increasingly reflect the character of Christ. That kind of culture takes years to build. And only a short time to erode. Protect the Culture You Build Once healthy culture begins to form, leaders must protect it intentionally and fiercely. Why? Because, healthy culture is fragile. Trust is fragile. Clarity is fragile. Alignment is fragile. A team or church can spend years building healthy rhythms which can fall when unhealthy behavior, toxic attitudes, unmanaged conflict, or fear-driven leadership slowly undermine everything that was built. That is why leaders cannot apologize for healthy culture. Celebrate it. Protect it. Reinforce it. Own it. Not everyone will want to function inside a healthy culture. Some people prefer systems built around control, chaos, criticism, passivity, politics, or personal preference. Healthy accountability and healthy leadership often expose unhealthy motives, unhealthy behaviors and unhealthy people. Wise leaders understand that preserving healthy culture sometimes requires difficult conversations and strong boundaries. Sometimes the kindest thing you can do is help people honestly recognize that their values, goals, or desires no longer align with the direction of the organization, or your church. Not every person belongs in every culture. And that’s okay. Final Thought Culture is not cosmetic. It’s not simply statements on the wall. Culture is foundational. Eventually culture determines whether vision survives, whether teams flourish, whether churches remain healthy, and whether organizations accomplish the mission they were called to fulfill. So lead patiently and intentionally. Lead courageously. Lead like Christ. Shape culture. And once healthy culture begins to emerge, steward it carefully—because strong vision sitting inside unhealthy culture will eventually collapse under the weight of the environment surrounding it. A weekly roundup of revitalization, replanting, and church renewal insights and news.
This Week's Big Signal The clearest signal this week is that church renewal leaders are being asked to keep mission central while denominational and congregational attention is easily pulled toward debate, structure, and fatigue. The SBC Annual Meeting in Orlando has generated predictable attention around officer elections, constitutional questions, and public controversy, but the most renewal-relevant reports were about churches sharing the gospel, baptizing new believers, measuring discipleship, engaging volunteers, and strengthening pastors for long-term ministry. That matters because declining or plateaued churches rarely have excess attention. What leaders celebrate, measure, and discuss in the hallway often becomes the practical center of the church. Baptist Press reported more than 1,000 professions of faith through Crossover Orlando, 554 participating churches, nearly 4,000 volunteers, almost 20,000 people hearing the gospel, and a fifth straight year of SBC baptism increases. At the same time, Lifeway's State of Discipleship work shows pastors broadly affirm discipleship but often lack clear measurement and strategy. One qualifier matters. Event fruit is real, but event fruit is not the same as durable congregational renewal. The follow-through question is whether churches can turn evangelistic moments into embodied discipleship, member ownership, peacemaking, serving, and sustainable pastoral leadership. Trends for Leaders to Notice
What's Overhyped The most overhyped narrative this week is that denominational debate is the main story of church renewal. Governance, doctrinal clarity, and institutional trust matter. But local churches are not renewed by winning online arguments or endlessly rehearsing convention drama. The more important question is whether churches are becoming more evangelistic, more discipling, more prayerful, more unified, and better led. Where the Greatest Opportunity Exists The greatest opportunity right now is helping churches convert attention into mission. The week offered a sharp contrast: public debate drew headlines, while reports on evangelism, baptism, discipleship measurement, volunteer engagement, and pastoral financial health pointed toward the actual work that strengthens churches. For Southern Baptist and non-denominational leaders, the practical focus should be a simple renewal dashboard: gospel conversations, baptisms, discipleship pathway movement, volunteer engagement, new leader development, congregational peacemaking, and pastor sustainability. These are not glamorous metrics, but they tell leaders whether a church is becoming healthier or merely busier. The strongest next step is to connect event-based energy to ordinary systems. After outreach, who follows up? After baptism, who disciples? After a new member joins, where do they serve? After a pastor shows strain, who notices early? Renewal gains staying power when churches stop treating mission, discipleship, leadership, and pastoral health as separate lanes and start treating them as one ecosystem. The work of renewal is rarely dramatic in the moment. It is usually slow, honest, prayerful, and patient. But week by week, the churches that face reality, stay on mission, and take faithful next steps are the ones most likely to see lasting fruit. Sources
 One of the dangers facing many churches is one pastors and leaders are often hesitant to name plainly: congregational governance by carnal, immature, or possibly unregenerate membership.
That sentence will make some people nervous. It should. But ignoring the issue has not made our churches healthier. Baptists have historically affirmed congregationalism. That is not the problem. A gathered congregation of regenerate believers, submitted to Christ, guided by Scripture, led by qualified pastors, and marked by humility, prayer, and the fruit of the Spirit is a beautiful expression of Baptist ecclesiology. But that is not always what we are dealing with now. The 1925 Baptist Faith and Message described the church as “a congregation of baptized believers,” governed by Christ’s laws and exercising the rights and privileges given by His Word. In 1963, the language shifted: “This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.” The 2000 statement retained the phrase, saying each congregation operates “under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” (The Baptist Faith and Message) That phrase matters: under the Lordship of Christ. The danger is not democratic process. The danger is democratic process detached from discipleship, regenerate membership, biblical authority, pastoral leadership, and spiritual maturity. Herschel Hobbs, who chaired the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message committee, did not describe congregational decision-making as raw majority rule. He wrote that each member has equal rights and responsibilities, but that the will of the body should be “reached under the authority and guidance of the Spirit of Christ.” (Baptist Standard) That is a very different thing from a room full of people saying, “I think,” “I feel,” “I want,” and “I’ve been here longer.” The Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives shows that the 1963 committee files include correspondence, drafts, reviews, clippings, and related material from the committee’s work, much of it from or to Hobbs, but the publicly available inventory does not explain why this exact phrase was introduced. (sbhla.org) So we should be careful not to overclaim. But we can say this: whatever the committee intended, the phrase has often been functionally reinterpreted in local church life as unrestricted congregational democracy. And that has created a serious problem. Congregationalism Is Not the Same as Congregational Control Healthy congregationalism is not mob rule with a hymnbook. It is not every member having equal authority to redirect the church regardless of spiritual maturity, biblical understanding, actual participation, or submission to Christ.
But that is what we have in some of our weakest, sickest and most declined churches. Western individualism has not helped us. We have too often baptized the assumption that every opinion deserves equal weight simply because every person has equal worth. Those are not the same thing. Every church member has equal dignity before God. But not every opinion is equally biblical, wise, prayed over, informed, or Spirit-led.
Assuming Regenerate Church Membership The Baptist vision of congregational governance assumes a regenerate church membership. That is the key. Congregationalism works best when the congregation is made up of believers who are actually following Jesus. But when easy believism, casual membership, poor membership stewardship, neglected discipline, and bloated rolls shape the church, the system begins to break down. In too many churches, people who are uninvolved in worship, absent from service, disconnected from mission, and unsubmitted to pastoral leadership still retain full voting authority over the future of the church.
But they can show up at a business meeting and vote. That is a recipe for dysfunction. In some cases, the least spiritually mature voices end up setting the direction of the church. The people least invested in the mission can hold veto power over those most committed to it. Anyone can say "no" and nobody can say "yes." That is not congregational health. That is ecclesiological malpractice. Full Democracy Does Not Disciple People We would not lead a classroom of kindergartners by pure majority vote. We would not let middle schoolers determine the entire direction of a school by popular opinion. Why? Because maturity matters.
Yet in some churches, we apply a form of full democracy to deeply spiritual questions and then act surprised when the outcome is chaos.
These are not merely procedural questions. They are spiritual questions. They require prayer, surrender, Scripture, trust, humility, courage, and surrender to God's will. A carnal congregation will almost always choose comfort over mission. An immature congregation will usually choose preference over sacrifice. An unsubmitted congregation will often confuse control with faithfulness. Why Declining Churches Are Especially Vulnerable The churches most vulnerable to this problem are often plateaued, declining, conflicted churches with fully congregational governance. That is not a statistical claim I can prove with a national dataset. It is an observational claim from repeated work with churches in distress. When a church has declined for decades, the remaining congregation is often tired, fearful, protective, and suspicious. Many forward-thinking leaders left long ago. The church may have endured conflict, pastoral turnover, failed change efforts, and financial pressure. In that environment, full congregational governance often reinforces decline.
A church may think it has a voting problem when it actually has a discipleship problem, a membership problem, and a spiritual authority problem. Church Plants Are Telling Us Something Here is the uncomfortable reality: most new church plants are not replicating this kind of unfettered full congregationalism. That should tell us something. Church planters are not usually building systems where every routine decision requires a church vote. They are not typically handing broad directional authority to loosely connected attenders. They know mission requires clarity, speed, trust, and qualified leadership. Many long established declining churches are defending governance systems that our newest churches would never intentionally design. That does not automatically mean every older governance structure is wrong. But it does mean we should be honest enough to ask whether our structures are producing health or protecting dysfunction. I Am Not Against Congregational Participation Let me be clear:
The congregation should matter. Members should be taught, informed, discipled, heard, and meaningfully involved. But the church must also recognize that spiritual maturity, biblical qualification, and pastoral leadership matter. The congregation should affirm major directional decisions. But not every operational decision belongs on the floor of a business meeting. The congregation should hold leaders accountable. But carnal members should not be allowed to hold the mission hostage. The Big Five In many healthier churches, congregational voting is intentionally limited to major covenantal and directional matters. These are often called the Big Five:
That kind of structure does not eliminate congregationalism. It clarifies it. It allows pastors to lead.
And it prevents the church from turning every ministry decision into a referendum. The Real Issue Is Spiritual The deeper issue is not polity. It is discipleship. A congregation that lacks biblical formation, spiritual maturity, humility, prayerfulness, surrender, and the fruit of the Spirit will eventually weaponize whatever governance system it has. But full congregationalism gives that immaturity maximum reach.
The Final Word Baptist congregationalism is not the problem. Carnal congregationalism is. A healthy Baptist church is not a pure democracy. It is a covenanted body of believers operating under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, guided by Scripture, led by qualified pastors, served by faithful deacons, and participating together with humility and spiritual responsibility. The question is not simply, “Did the church vote?” The better question is, “Was the church spiritually prepared to discern and obey the will of Christ?” Because when unregenerate, immature, or carnal membership governs the church, the process may be democratic, but the outcome may still be disastrous.  As Southern Baptists arrived in Orlando, as I'm walking the Convention halls, I keep getting asked the same set of questions.
Those are fair questions. Southern Baptists deserve straight answers. The survey was launched because claims were being made about what Southern Baptists believe, what Southern Baptists fear, and what Southern Baptists want. At a moment like this, when messengers are being asked to consider another constitutional amendment, those claims should not be left to assumption, platform, or volume. Southern Baptists needed to be heard and their responses be revealed-fully. No paywalls, no spin. The survey does not settle every question. It was not a scientific random sample. It was an open grassroots survey. But it does reveal something important: the Southern Baptists who responded are not drifting left on the question of women pastors. They are overwhelmingly complementation. They are deeply conservative on the office of pastor/elder. They are not clamoring for women to preach in Sunday worship. And yet, they are also more cautious when the question shifts from theology to constitutional process. That distinction may be the most important finding in the whole survey. Among self-identified Southern Baptist respondents, 90.2% agreed that Scripture reserves the office of pastor/elder for qualified men only. That is not ambiguity. That is overwhelming conviction. Likewise, 85.7% agreed that the title “Pastor” should only refer to male individuals serving in the biblical office of pastor/elder. Nearly 80% agreed that ministry titles conferred to women, such as “Women’s Pastor” or “Children’s Pastor,” create confusion regarding pastoral office and should not be used. And 78.5% disagreed that women should be permitted to preach during Sunday worship gatherings. The exact opposite of the survey which motived me to launch this effort. This is not the profile of a convention sliding into egalitarianism. It is the profile of a convention that remains strongly complementarian, broadly confessional, and significantly concerned about confusing titles and pastoral functions. But the survey also revealed something else. Southern Baptists are not equally convinced that a new constitutional amendment is the only or wisest answer. Among self-identified Southern Baptists, 69.3% said the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is already sufficient on this matter. Only 26.9% said it is not sufficient, while 3.8% had no opinion. That matters. If nearly seven in ten Southern Baptist respondents say the Baptist Faith and Message already says enough, then the burden of proof rests on those arguing that the Constitution must say more. The issue is not whether Southern Baptists affirm male-only pastors and elders. The survey shows they do. The issue is whether this proposed constitutional mechanism is necessary, precise, and wise. Support for the Truth and Unity Amendment itself was real, but not overwhelming. Among self-identified Southern Baptists, 63.1% said the proposed amendment provides greater clarity and should be affirmed. Another 29% said no, and 7.9% were unsure. That finding mirrors the broader convention atmosphere. There is majority support for more clarity. There is not yet constitutional consensus. And that leads to Standing Rule 6. Asked whether Standing Rule 6 should be suspended to remove the ordinary requirements process for the Truth and Unity Amendment to be added to the Constitution, only 46.3% of Southern Baptist respondents said yes. Another 32.5% said no, and 21.2% were unsure. That is the warning light. Support for the amendment runs ahead of support for suspending the process. Southern Baptists may want clarity, but many are not convinced that bypassing the ordinary constitutional pathway is the right way to get it. That should make messengers pause. Standing Rule 6 exists for a reason. It sends constitutional amendments through review, reflection, and reporting before they are brought back to the messengers. It slows us down. That is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it protects us from our worst instincts. Sometimes it keeps us from constitutionalizing language before the convention has fully understood its reach. There are moments when rules need to be suspended. But the case for suspension should be stronger than impatience. If the amendment is necessary, precise, and broadly supported, then why not let it go through the normal process? If it cannot survive review, scrutiny, and two consecutive two-thirds votes, is the problem the process—or the proposal? Some will say, “We have already voted on this three times, and a majority has supported it.” That is true, but incomplete. The Law Amendment received majority support, but it failed to reach the required two-thirds threshold in Indianapolis. A similar amendment failed again in Dallas. The 2025 vote received 60.74% support, short of the two-thirds required. In ordinary SBC constitutional terms, that means Southern Baptists have not approved it. We do not get to redefine “settled” as “we voted until my side won.” That cuts both ways. Opponents should not pretend the issue has gone away. Supporters should not pretend a 60% vote is the same thing as constitutional adoption. Our rules require more than a majority because our Constitution should not be changed lightly. The question before Orlando is not simply, “Do Southern Baptists believe pastors should be men?” They do. The better question is, “Has the convention been shown that this amendment is necessary, that this wording is sufficiently clear, and that suspending the ordinary process is justified?” That is a much higher bar. There is also the question of whether this is truly a crisis. The public data do not show a convention-wide egalitarian surge. The best available public evidence suggests that churches with women in pastoral roles remain a small minority within the SBC. Even estimates offered by those concerned about the issue suggest the number of churches with women holding pastor titles is a small percentage of the convention’s total churches. The issue is real, but it is not numerically widespread. That does not mean it is unimportant. A doctrinal boundary can matter even when only a small number of churches test it. The SBC should be clear that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to qualified men. Churches should not use titles that confuse the office. The Credentials Committee should not be left to guess what messengers believe. But there is a difference between clarity and panic. If the SBC is overwhelmingly complementarian, if the Baptist Faith and Message already says the office of pastor is limited to men, if messengers have already upheld the removal of churches with women serving in pastoral office, and if the number of known cases is relatively small, then we should ask whether this is an existential crisis or a manageable governance issue. One of the key questions I keep hearing is this: Has the Credentials Committee actually asked for greater clarity? That question deserves an answer before messengers vote. If the Credentials Committee needs more guidance, let us hear that plainly. Let the committee explain what it needs, where the current language is insufficient, how many churches have been referred over this issue, how often the problem has appeared, and what kind of cases are creating difficulty. Southern Baptists should not be asked to amend the Constitution based on vague claims of need if the body doing the work has not publicly laid out the problem. How many churches have been referred to the Credentials Committee in recent years over women serving as pastors? How many were found not to be in friendly cooperation? How many cases involved senior pastors? How many involved staff titles? How many involved preaching? How many were resolved quietly? How many were based on websites, third-party lists, or outdated information? And perhaps just as importantly, should Southern Baptists assume that a constitutional amendment would eliminate the need for referrals and appeals altogether? The Credentials Committee process exists precisely because difficult cases arise and because churches have the right to appeal decisions to the messenger body. If referrals and appeals continue to come before the convention floor, is that evidence of failure, or simply evidence that our polity is functioning as designed? Before promising that a constitutional amendment will remove these debates from the annual meeting, Southern Baptists should ask whether that expectation is realistic—or even desirable. A convention that allows messengers to hear appeals and make final judgments may spend time on difficult cases, but that is part of how accountability and cooperation work in Baptist life. Those are not hostile questions. They are responsible questions. The SBC has mechanisms. The Credentials Committee can make inquiries. The Executive Committee can recommend that a church is not in friendly cooperation. Messengers can sustain or reject that recommendation. That process has already been used. Saddleback and Fern Creek were removed. Immanuel Baptist in Paducah was later removed. The convention has not shown itself powerless. So if we already have a mechanism, why is a constitutional amendment necessary? And if it is necessary, what exact problem does this amendment solve that the Baptist Faith and Message and current Credentials process cannot solve? That is where the wording matters. The original Truth and Unity language referred to a woman serving in the “office or function” of pastor/elder/overseer, “such as preaching to the assembled congregation.” After concern was raised, the language was revised from “such as” to “specifically.” That change was intended to narrow the amendment and focus the concern on preaching to the assembled congregation. But the fact that the change was needed confirms the concern. The phrase “office or function” is doing a lot of work. Some supporters say the revised wording answers those concerns. Others are not convinced. The backlash to the wording change shows that the concern is not merely about women pastors. It is about trust, interpretation, and enforcement. One side fears churches will use ambiguity to move toward egalitarian practice while claiming to remain Southern Baptist. The other side fears denominational leaders or outside pressure groups will use ambiguity to accuse churches that are confessionally complementarian but differ in ministry titles, staff structures, or worship practices. Both concerns should be taken seriously. This is where Black churches, language churches, immigrant churches, and historically connected congregations must not be treated as an afterthought. Southern Baptists need to remember that churches do not all relate to the SBC in the same way. Some churches have historical, associational, state-convention, or informal ties that do not fit neatly into the assumptions of those who live at the center of national SBC life. Some Black churches and language churches may not participate in national SBC life in the same way other churches do, even if they appear in SBC databases or cooperate through certain channels. If a constitutional amendment creates a more aggressive enforcement culture, some churches may feel they are being judged from a distance by people who do not know their congregation, their history, their structure, or their relationship to the SBC. That does not mean doctrine should bend by race, language, or church background. It means enforcement should be careful, factual, and fair. We should also be honest about institutional trust. If Southern Baptists are told that this is urgent, that the rules must be suspended, and that the Constitution must be changed immediately, they have every right to ask why. Has something changed between Dallas and Orlando? Have new cases emerged? Has the Credentials Committee said it cannot do its work? Have entity leaders broadly asked for this? Have state convention leaders? Have Black Baptist leaders? Have language-church leaders? Have associational leaders? Or is this another attempt to pass what has already failed until it finally passes? That question may sound blunt, but it is the question many are asking. Some will say, “The issue is not settled until the Constitution is clear.” Others will hear that and ask, “Or is it not settled until you get the outcome you want?” In Baptist life, process is not a nuisance. It is part of how we maintain trust. A two-thirds requirement is not a technicality. It is a guardrail. It forces constitutional changes to earn broad consensus. If we lower that bar in spirit, even while technically following the rules, we should not be surprised when people lose trust. There are benefits if the amendment passes. It could provide greater clarity. It could signal that the SBC means what the Baptist Faith and Message says. It could discourage confusing titles. It could help the Credentials Committee evaluate churches that openly affirm women serving in pastoral office or function. It could settle the matter for some. But there are also risks. It could expand the Credentials Committee’s work into a steady stream of title-policing and function-policing. It could invite churches to accuse one another based on websites, clips, screenshots, and social media outrage. It could create confusion over women who teach, speak, pray, testify, lead ministries, serve in missions, or address the gathered church in ways Southern Baptists have historically permitted. It could further strain relationships with Black churches, language churches, immigrant churches, and churches whose connection to SBC life has been more local or associational than national. It could deepen the sense that national SBC life is increasingly driven by pressure campaigns rather than cooperative mission. And if the amendment fails, there are risks there too. Supporters may conclude the SBC lacks the courage to enforce its own confession. Churches using pastor titles for women may believe the convention lacks resolve. The same debate may return year after year, draining energy from evangelism, church planting, revitalization, missions, and abuse reform. So what should Southern Baptists do? First, we should acknowledge the truth about the data. The survey does not reveal egalitarian drift. It reveals strong complementarian conviction. Second, we should tell the truth about the process. Support for the amendment is higher than support for suspending Standing Rule 6. That matters. Third, we should tell the truth about the crisis claim. The issue is real, but the evidence does not show a convention-wide egalitarian takeover. Fourth, we should ask the Credentials Committee to speak clearly. If greater clarity is needed, let the committee say so and explain why. Fifth, we should resist exaggeration. We should be presented with actual statistical evidence of how many churches are not in friendly cooperation and a clear definition of what the presenting concerns are. Inflated rhetoric may win applause, but it rarely builds trust. Sixth, we should protect both doctrinal conviction and cooperative restraint. A convention can be clear without becoming reactionary. It can discipline churches without creating a culture of suspicion. It can affirm male-only pastors and elders without treating every unresolved question as a constitutional emergency. Seventh, we should reject polarization. Southern Baptist have had a historically big tent when it comes to churches and convictions, not so large that we deny the foundations of the faith but large enough that there is light between brothers, congregations, Pastors, Seminary Profs, Presidents and Entity heads. Some to my left on an issue on which I am far right, are not liberal, moderate or progressive necessarily and I need to avoid labeling them such. Tellingly, some historic conservative pastors in the past few weeks have been labeled moderate and liberal by those overzealous to show just how conservative they are. The SBC does not need to choose between truth and unity. But it does need to recognize that naming an amendment “Truth and Unity” does not guarantee that it will produce either. The question before messengers is not whether Southern Baptists are complementarian. The survey says they are. The Baptist Faith and Message says they are. The convention’s recent actions say they are. The real question is whether this amendment, this wording, and this procedural path are the wisest way to strengthen our cooperation. Southern Baptists should not be afraid of clarity. But neither should we be careless with our Constitution. A small statistical problem can still matter doctrinally. But a serious doctrinal concern does not automatically justify an oversized institutional response. That is the balance we need in Orlando: conviction without panic, clarity without haste, and cooperation without confusion. That would serve both truth and unity. |
Archives
June 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed