Did the Credentials Committee Fail SBTC Churches?
I think so, but it doesn't have to end here.
I was in the room when the Credentials Committee (CC) of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) decided that Fielder Church “does not engage in or encourage any other practice or conduct deemed to be inconsistent or contrary to the doctrinal statement of the Convention.”[1] I am a volunteer member of the CC, and I believe this decision was a failure on the part of the committee to act on behalf of the Convention and its affiliated churches.
Since this was a decision not to act on a report to the CC, regarding Fielder Church’s public affirmation of female “pastors,” there is no warrant for the CC or the SBTC staff to make a public statement. Therefore, I believe that the only way this failure can be made known to the churches of the SBTC is for someone like me to “go public” with at least some of the details. That’s why I’ve written what I have here, and that’s why I’m publishing it online.
Some Caveats and Clarifications
First, I am not aware of any confidentiality agreement for CC members. Of course, we sometimes learn details that should not be publicized without context or discretion, but nothing we talk about or decide is privileged information. It could be accessed by virtually anyone with the will to do it. Therefore, I do not believe it is a breach of trust or of any agreement for me to publish what I have here.
Second, I am not aware of any bad intentions or insincerity on the part of those involved. I have no reason to believe that members of the CC were acting in bad faith, and I do not in any way intend to impugn their character or motives. If any or all of the other members of the CC wish to counter my narrative or argument, then I do not begrudge them doing so. In fact, I welcome a public discussion of this matter. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and SBTC churches deserve to know what happened and why.
Third, I have my own biases and convictions, and I understand that others may disagree with my conclusions. However, no one can dispute the facts I’m presenting here. And, furthermore, I am hopeful that many SBTC churches and pastors share my convictions. This hope is a major motivation for my publication of this information. In fact, I encourage others to take a public stand for the convictions we celebrate as Southern Baptists of Texas.
Fourth, I have no ill will toward SBTC staff or my fellow committee members. As I understand it, disagreement and debate are no bar to friendship and cooperation. I made my disagreement known during the CC meeting (and in subsequent conversations), and it should be no surprise to those who were in the room with me that I have written what I have here.
Fifth and finally, there is much more to the backstory and the matter at hand than what I have publicized. If SBTC churches and pastors want to thoughtfully participate in the discussion and learn more about how decisions are made, then they may do so by contacting SBTC staff and/or CC members. The names of these individuals are publicly accessible in the SBTC annuals (HERE is the 2024 Annual).
Female “Pastors” and the SBTC
About nine months ago, I wrote a personal blog post (The SBTC Reaffirmed Complementarity… For Now), telling a story about how the SBTC publicly affirmed complementarity in the church (by excluding females from the pastoral role). For a few years (2022-2024), messengers to the SBTC annual meeting have affirmed a motion from the floor of the convention to formally clarify an operative interpretation of the word “pastor” in Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BF&M 2000) and also in the SBTC Constitution.
The question on the table was (and is): Will the SBTC make female “pastors” a prohibiting factor for affiliation and cooperation?
For a while, the unofficial answer to this question was: “Yes, but…”
The SBTC would not affiliate with any church that has a female Senior Pastor, but any other kind of pastor (i.e., Children’s Pastor, Youth Pastor, or Women’s Pastor) would not prohibit affiliation and cooperation. In 2019, the Executive Board of the SBTC provided an interpretation of the word “pastor” to the Credentials Committee, narrowly focusing on the Senior Pastor alone. This interpretation was not publicized, but it was included in the information packet provided to CC members for the purpose of guiding their decisions.
However, starting in 2023, based on the overwhelmingly supported interpretation by the messengers, the CC was to proceed with a broader focus on pastors of any kind (not just Senior Pastors). The messengers to the SBTC annual meeting in November of 2022 affirmed with a super-majority that the answer to the question – Will the SBTC make female “pastors” a prohibiting factor for affiliation and cooperation? – would now be unequivocally “Yes.” The motion adopted said, “the SBTC, for purposes of affiliation, interpret the language in the SBTC Constitution, article IV, section 1, to refer not only to the titles of senior pastor or lead pastor, but to any role designated by the noun, ‘pastor’” (emphasis added).[2]
This interpretation was affirmed in November of 2022, and it applied to all churches requesting affiliation from that point on. However, its implementation was delayed for presently affiliated churches until January of 2025. While the churches of the SBTC were clear about their convictions, they were also willing to be patient with those churches that may have needed some time to move in the right direction. And yet, in direct contrast to the Baptist General Convention of Texas, the SBTC intentionally drew a stark line on this issue – we would not affiliate with churches who have female “pastors” of any kind. On this we were resolute.
Fielder Church’s Public Affirmation of Female “Pastors”
On April 8, 2025, a report was made to the Credentials Committee of the SBTC that Fielder Church in Arlington, TX, employed female “pastors.” Jason Paredes is the Senior Pastor of Fielder Church, which is affiliated with the SBTC. Paredes has expressly stated that he disagrees with and intentionally maintains practices contrary to the BF&M 2000. Specifically, he believes females should be placed in the office of pastor in a local church, and Fielder Church employs seven females as “pastors.”[3]
For example, in 2023, when the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) removed Saddleback Church in California from affiliation with the national convention for having female “pastors” on staff, Peredes explained to his own church that the action was a mistake. You can view Paredes’s brief address to his congregation HERE. It is obvious that Paredes was at odds with the SBC’s messengers, and he was at odds with the stated position of the SBTC as well.
Paredes soon published a follow-up message to his church. In this lengthier address, Paredes argued explicitly in support of female “pastors.” You can view Paredes’s message in full HERE. In short, Paredes and Fielder Church are convictional in their position and not merely pragmatic. Fielder Church holds a theological position that affirms female “pastors,” and they have publicly stated their convictional position.
When the CC of the SBTC received this information, the committee decided to confront Paredes and the leadership of Fielder Church about their violation of the BF&M 2000 and of the SBTC Constitution. A member of the CC was designated to meet with Fielder Church’s leadership to discuss the matter and report back to the CC at the next meeting (in July). It was also anticipated that Paredes and some other leaders of Fielder Church may want to meet with the CC in person to make a case for Fielder Church’s continued affiliation with the SBTC (despite their contrary convictions and practices). This was not unprecedented, and it was perceived that a discussion might be illuminating for all involved.
The July Meeting and Failure to Act
In July of 2025, the Credentials Committee met for its second scheduled meeting of the year. During each meeting, the CC discusses various churches – some requesting affiliation, some with potential problems that may require further inquiry and/or removal, and some requesting removal for one reason or another. This meeting was no different, except that Fielder Church leaders would participate in a portion of the meeting to address the concerns of the report against them and any others raised by the CC members.
Jason Paredes and three other pastors from Fielder Church came to make their case. For about 15 minutes, Paredes reiterated Fielder Church’s position on female “pastors,” making some of the same points he did before in his public address from 2023. He believes Fielder Church is right to delineate between “elders” and “pastors” as two distinct titles for those with different pastoral responsibilities in the church. Paredes believes that those females who possess the title of “pastor” at Fielder Church are appropriately designated as “pastors.” In short, his personal convictions are no different today than what he stated two years ago, and Fielder Church embodies those convictions without apology.
Near the conclusion of the discussion, however, Paredes added that he and Fielder Church would be willing to change the title of all their “pastors” (male and female) to “shepherd” if this would alleviate the necessity to remove Fielder Church from affiliation with the SBTC. The rationale presented was: If the only problem is the noun “pastor,” then we are willing to make an adjustment to the noun “shepherd” as a title for all of our pastors.
When Paredes and the three other pastors of Fielder Church left the CC meeting, discussion ensued. A few of the CC members welcomed Paredes’s proposed change, and they advocated for a decision to maintain Fielder Church’s affiliation with the SBTC on the basis that they would no longer use the noun “pastor” to designate any of their female “shepherds.” In other words, they argued that the CC should take no action, since the problem (as they saw it) was eliminated. Those who argued this way particularly pointed to the formally embraced interpretation of the SBTC Constitution and the BF&M 2000. It says, “that the SBTC, for purposes of affiliation, interpret the language in the SBTC Constitution, article IV, section 1, to refer not only to the titles of senior pastor or lead pastor, but to any role designated by the noun, ‘pastor’” (emphasis added).[4] They reasoned: the prohibited noun or title is that of “pastor,” not “shepherd.”
I raised a point of contention, arguing that the words “pastor” and “shepherd” are merely two English words that come from the same Greek word “ποιμην” (or poimén).[5] I insisted that, if such a rationale were adopted, then any church could skirt the SBTC parameters by using virtually any other language on the planet. For example, the Hungarian word for “pastor” is “lelkesz,” and in Arabic it is “alqasu.” If we are playing a game of semantics, then there is absolutely no way to prevent the affiliation of any church that embraces female “pastors.” They could simply adopt the same word in a different language or adopt some other synonym in the English language – which is exactly what Fielder Church proposed to do.
When it came time to vote, it was an audible “yes” or “no” to either approve or reject the motion on the table. I don’t recall the exact wording, but the motion was in favor of taking no action to remove Fielder Church with the provision that they change the title of their “pastors” to “shepherd.” Some of the CC members may have abstained, but my voice was the only one I heard voting “no.”[6] In my view, Fielder Church had made no meaningful change at all. The title was essentially the same as it was before the meeting, their stated convictions to affirm female “pastors” was definitely the same, and their intention to continue an inconsistent and contrary practice to the BF&M 2000 and the SBTC Constitution was the same.[7] And yet, the CC failed to act on behalf of the stated expectations of affiliated SBTC churches.
Conclusion
The Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT, or Texas Baptists) has made it known that they do not believe female “pastors” is a barrier to cooperation in their convention.[8] The SBTC has frequently set itself apart from the BGCT as a more conservative convention and a “confessional” convention for Baptists in Texas. That is, SBTC churches must affirm the BF&M 2000, and they must not engage in or encourage any other practice or conduct deemed to be inconsistent or contrary to the doctrinal statement of the Convention.
Fielder Church is a perfect test case on the SBTC’s ability to live up to its public statements, its confessional convictions, and its constitutional documents. Fielder Church not only engages in a practice that is inconsistent and contrary to the BF&M 2000, but they have also encouraged others to do the same in the form of a public argument to affirm female “pastors.” The Credentials Committee has failed the test (in my opinion), but the CC’s standing decision does not have to be the final word from the SBTC.
My own church is beginning talks about what to do if the SBTC does not act to remove churches like Fielder Church who publicly flaunt their contradictory practice to our confession of faith. I’m old enough to remember that semantics was the theologically liberal and moderate game played by those among the SBC who sought to undermine the inerrancy of Scripture during the 1970s and 1980s. Conservatives did not allow them to redefine “inerrancy” back then, and we shouldn’t allow anyone to redefine “pastor” or “shepherd” today.
It may be that the SBTC cannot be detoured from its current path toward pragmatic egalitarianism. If so, then my church may not continue cooperating with such a convention. I hope that this is not the case.
At this moment, I am still a member of the Credentials Committee. I am still a pastor of a church that cooperates with the SBTC. I am publishing this information in an attempt to encourage others who are like me among the SBTC and even those serving on various committees (here’s looking at those of you serving on the Executive Board) to push for more substantial unity and better cooperation.
Not every institution is worth saving, but conservatives must choose to fight for those institutions that are.
[1] This is not the official statement of the Credentials Committee, but a citation of Article IV, Section 1 of the SBTC Constitution. https://sbtexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Constitution-and-Bylaws-after-Nov-2020-changes_WEB.pdf By implication, the Credentials Committee did vote to affirm this statement, since it decided to take no action to remove Fielder Church after consideration of the church’s position and practice regarding female “pastors.”
[2] https://sbtexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-Annual-for-Website.pdf. p. 46.
[3] Fielder Church has now changed the titles of all their “pastors” to that of “shepherd,” so these seven females are no longer titled as “pastors.” However, until August of 2025 these females did have the title of “pastor,” and the rest of this article explains why the title change happened and why it is no substantial change at all.
[4] https://sbtexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-Annual-for-Website.pdf. p. 46.
[5] For a more exhaustive list of all the words used in the New Testament for church leadership, see this article: https://www.marcminter.com/p/what-is-a-pastor-and-is-a-pastor Also, Paredes makes this very same point at the 11:30 mark in his address, which was cited earlier. See the full video here:
[6] It is possible that one other Credentials Committee member voted “no” audibly, but I did not hear another. One other committee member did raise similar objections to the ones I did during discussion, but I cannot be sure about the vote.
[7] The unchanging meaning of the two titles (pastor and shepherd) can be observed by Fielder Church’s change for all of their pastors’ titles. They did not only change the title of their female “pastors,” but all of their “pastors” (male and female) to “shepherd.” Thus, Fielder Church is still designating their pastoral title (whatever they call it) for both males and females. https://www.fielder.org/staff/
[8] https://www.texasbaptists.org/article/panel-finds-differing-views-on-women-in-ministry-not-a-barrier-to-collaboration-in-gods-mission