These past few weeks have been deeply troubling for many in the Southern Baptist Convention as we witnessed some of the Executive Committee members and Executive Committee staff attempt to ignore the directive of the messengers and thwart an investigation into their handling of sexual abuse issues. It was ugly. It was frustrating. And it revealed a serious threat to the polity and stability of our Convention. If you are not familiar with what the SBC Executive Committee does, you are not alone, as it has functioned in the background for many years as an administrative body for the SBC. Its main function is to distribute the funds given to the Convention as approved by the messengers and act for the Convention “ad interim” throughout the year. In recent years, the Executive Committee has asserted greater and greater authority, and this has led to this present crisis point. Over these last few weeks, some of the EC members openly argued that the EC could and should disregard or act contrary to the will of the messengers if they deemed it in their best interest. This was a clear redefinition of our Convention’s polity and governance. And this has created among us a crisis of leadership. Those who hold the responsibility of carrying out the work of the Convention, as directed by the messengers, no longer enjoy the trust of those for whom they were elected to represent. 

The flashpoint of these recent weeks was from a demand by the messengers of the 2021 SBC Annual meeting that, among other things, the EC waive attorney-client privilege in regards to the work of an appointed task force charged with investigating how the EC has handled sexual abuse issues over the last 20 years. The will of the messengers was clear, but some of the EC members and staff were unwilling to relent. It was not until an overwhelming flood of Southern Baptists, that included SBC Executive Committee president emeritus Morris Chapman, all six seminary presidents, state convention executives and executive committees, former Executive Committee chairmen, local associations, countless pastors, and many individual Southern Baptists, all admonishing the EC to obey the will of the messengers, that the EC finally agreed to wave attorney-client privilege this past Tuesday.  

When representatives ignore the explicitly expressed will of those they represent, it is deeply troubling and frustrating. When representatives demonstrate more passion for self-preservation than for convictional leadership it is also deeply troubling and frustrating. These frustrations are aggravated in part by the parliamentary process that can be confusing, opaque, and slow. In the context of these frustrating days, I often hear the threat that churches will be leaving the SBC if a particular decision does not go the way that is desired. Sometimes this is made by an individual as a way to give weight to their position. Sometimes this is expressed as a general threat that a particular decision will cause many churches to leave the SBC. The SBC is unusual among church denominations in that each church is autonomous and freely associates with the SBC, state conventions, and local associations. This free association allows each church to decide if they wish to associate (or continue to associate) with the Convention. This also means that each church decides how much funding they wish to give to the Convention. Thus, it is not beyond the imagination that something could arise that would animate a significate number of SBC churches to withdraw from the SBC or withhold funding from the Cooperative Program that could cause a catastrophic collapse. This is always a possibility in organizations where each member is free to associate or not. 

The situation with the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention is not good. We are likely just at the beginning of some difficult days where we must rethink how much we empower and how significant we restrict the work of the Executive Committee, its officers, and its staff. Judging by the intensity of opposition that some of the EC members and staff have brought about in efforts to thwart the Sexual Abuse Task Force’s ability to investigate how the EC has handled sexual abuse issues, I fear this may indicate there is some truly damaging information not yet publicly known. It may be that what the task force investigation reveals is more disturbing than what is already known. If this is true, then what we will face in the coming months may be more heartbreaking and troubling than what we already know. Even still, I do not think the threat of withdrawing from the SBC is helpful or productive. 

For Southern Baptists, the primary way we cooperate is through giving to the Cooperative Program. The SBC is heavily invested in theological education with our six seminaries, we also have an entity that provides insurance and retirement investments, and Lifeway Christian Resources. However, the overwhelming majority of our Cooperative Program funds support the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board. Since 1925 Southern Baptists have supported our mission efforts and ministries through the Cooperative Program, which is a unified budget supporting all the missions and ministries of the Southern Baptist Convention. Presently, 73% of every dollar given to the Cooperative Program goes to missions.

The effectiveness of the Cooperative Program is unrivaled. Of the many models for supporting missions, none is more effective or efficient. This year the Cooperative Program budget is $190 million. Of this $190 million, almost $139 million will go to the two mission boards. If the 47,592 SBC churches withheld their Cooperative Program giving and distributed their collective $190 million as each congregation saw fit, we would not be able to continue the work of the International Mission Board or the North American Mission Board. The consequence would likely be a return to the funding model where missionaries spent much of their time and effort personally soliciting support for their work. We would also lose the ability to strategically coordinate our mission efforts and resources. 

Supporting missions is what brought us together, and the theological and doctrinal boundaries of the Baptist Faith and Message are what hold us together. Unity under these two things should be what compels us to remain together. In the 1980s and 1990s, we rightly fought over theological issues. These were worthy issues to wrestle over and worthy issues to divide over. It was painful when some churches chose to leave the Southern Baptist Convention following the conservative resurgence. Though separation was painful, this does not mean it was not right. Churches that deny the inerrancy of scripture were right to separate from a denomination whose confession affirms the inerrancy of scripture. Churches who deny the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus were right to separate from a denomination whose confession affirms that salvation is through Jesus alone. Churches that reject the biblical model of marriage being between one man and one woman were right to separate from a denomination whose confession affirms the biblical understanding of marriage. The issues we face today are unsettling and of great concern, but they are not missional, theological, or doctrinal issues. 

The issues we face today are issues of polity and governance. The work of the task force will hopefully shed the light of truth on areas where we have not done well in responding to abuse victims and exposing predators. We likely have much repenting, reconciliation, and restoration work to do. These issues are certainly of great concern and not inconsequential. We need to deal with sin and failed leadership. Yet, I hope that we can both confront the present problems while also remaining supportive of our missionary work around the globe. This is not the time to disengage from the cooperative effort of missions under the confessional banner of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, but rather, press on. 

Not only do I think individuals and churches should not threaten to leave the SBC over these issues, but I think the better response is to resolve to stay and increase engagement. The polity of the SBC is unique and not easily understood. One of my regular frustrations is that many who are quick to express accusatory complaints about the workings and decisions of the SBC often demonstrate that they are unaware of how a particular entity is governed or even how the SBC functions. This frustration sometimes extends even to those who hold leadership positions, even members of the Executive Committee, who do not have a sufficient understanding of our polity. Even so, the way to learn and understand the polity is to participate in the polity. Participate by attending annual meetings, reading the reports, and asking questions. When I attended my first annual meeting, I felt like I was participating in an event where everyone else had a program and a script, but I was empty-handed. I did not understand how things were happening, why things were happening, and who was making them happen. But over the course of several years, attending annual meetings and participating in SBC life, I have a much better understanding of how and why we operate the way we do. In the SBC, threats to leave carry little persuasive impact but consistent advocacy has a profound influence. The history of how theological conservatives were able to reverse the course of the denomination from its liberal theological direction, which enjoyed the momentum and support of institutional and organizational leadership, is not of disengagement but rather of consistent and unrelenting advocacy year after year in our annual meetings. I can appreciate the desire to express your frustration with the SBC with declarations to withdraw or withhold financial gifts, but I think there is a more effective way. Here are two suggestions.

First, resolve to attend and participate in the annual meetings. The issue of late has been the Executive Committee’s refusal to acquiesce to the expressed will of the messengers until unrelenting pressure was brought to bear. I am thankful they have now reversed course, but even if they had not, the power to address the issue continued to rest with the messengers of the Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention only exists for two days a year when the messengers of its cooperating churches gather for the annual meeting. At the annual meeting reports, nominations, and motions are brought by various Convention committees, entities of the Convention, and the messengers from the floor. During the annual meeting, it may seem, as though the motions and decisions are preordained by the leadership but, it is ultimately the messengers who have the authority to make the decisions. The messengers elect the trustees of the various entities, the messengers approve the Cooperative Program budget, and the messengers determine the direction of the Convention. The authority of the messengers was demonstrated this past summer when the Executive Committee’s motion to proceed with an investigation of itself into how it had handled issues of sexual abuse was rejected. Instead, the messengers overwhelmingly passed a motion from the floor that created an independent task force to oversee the investigation, required the Executive Committee to waive attorney-client privilege, instructed that a written report of the investigation’s finding be made to the task force 30 days before the SBC 2022 annual meeting, and that the report be made public within one week of the task force’s receipt. Our governance by the authority of the messengers means that correcting wayward committees takes a while and nothing happens quickly. However, it also means that such authority, and the ability to exercise such authority, exists and rests with those who are willing to show up and participate in the annual meetings.

Secondly, give generously but give strategically. Personally, I think that churches should avoid putting allocation restrictions on their Cooperative Program giving. In my church, I encourage our people to give their tithe to the general budget of the church first then direct any additional giving to desired ministries. Likewise, I think in normal circumstances, churches should give unrestricted gifts to the Cooperative Program. Furthermore, withholding or escrowing funds is counterproductive because the primary ministries that are impacted are the two mission boards because they enjoy the majority benefit of Cooperative Program funds. However, when you have a committee of the Southern Baptist Convention acting in opposition to the expressed directive of the messengers, it is certainly appropriate to consider how to support the ministries of the Convention without supporting the wayward committee. Fortunately, churches can give to the Cooperative Program while restricting their gifts from supporting the Executive Committee. If the actions of the Executive Committee have so greatly shaken your church’s confidence in the leadership of the SBC that you are considering withholding Cooperative Program gifts, I would strongly encourage you to contact your state convention to learn how you can continue to give generously to missions while restricting funds going to the EC.

It was good that the Executive Committee voted on Tuesday to waive attorney-client privilege, but this is not the end. This action cleared the way for the Sexual Abuse Task Force to begin their work, and Guidepost, the company contracted to conduct the investigation, to start their investigation. Guidepost now has 220 days to conduct its investigation. There are now 227 days before the report will be made public. In 250 days, messengers will gather for the 2022 annual meeting in Anaheim CA, likely heavy-hearted by what they have learned from the report and resolved to respond well to what it has revealed. Pray for the work of Guidepost. Pray for the Task Force. Pray for the sexual abuse victims who have too long been ignored. Pray for the messengers who will gather in Anaheim to deliberate the will and direction of the Convention. And continue to pray for the SBC missionaries presently serving on the field, taking the gospel to the nations, and supported by our Cooperative Program giving.