The SBC Executive Committee’s Proposal to Use Cooperative Program Funds for Legal Fees Could Permanently Ruin the CP
The recent report from the SBC Executive Committee that avoiding “using Cooperative Program funds for legal costs by paying out of reserves…is no longer an option” has rightly shocked and upset many faithful SBC churches.
As it stands today, much that is not public needs to be made public between now and the next Executive Committee meeting and especially before the 2025 Annual Meeting in Dallas.
To aid Southern Baptists, we have compiled a list of questions that the EC must answer honestly and transparently. This list is not exhaustive, but it is a helpful starting point.
Southern Baptists everywhere should demand this information be made available if the EC is going to recommend, to a rightly jaded church base, that we accept their proposal to fund solutions to the problems they created with Cooperative Program dollars.
Here are the questions:
1. What is the true amount of outstanding legal bills? Show us the receipts and the checks.
2. What are the projected legal liabilities (future years + projected settlements)? Show us realistic projections of what you expect to ask for in 2026 (Hunt’s case is this year, but Sills’ comes in 2026).
3. What is the statute of limitations for Guidepost indemnification? When does the open-end tail liability close?
4. What discussions were had regarding the risks of Guidepost indemnification? Was the indemnification risk considered? If so, or if not, how are we holding those accountable for acting so recklessly?
5. Were any other 3rd party groups available that did not require indemnification?
6. Who signed the contract with Guidepost? Release a copy of the contract for all to see.
7. What options were ARITF presented with upon the release of the Guidepost report? Were the risks of a lawsuit discussed prior to release?
8. What role did non-SBC advisors play in the negotiation of the Guidepost selection and contract?
9. What is the legal relation between the EC’s liability and the SBC’s liability? Does the CP defacto backstop the EC’s actions?
10. What steps are being proposed to ensure that a president-appointed commission is not allowed to act and thereby accrue liability beyond the clear and explicit direction of the messengers?
11. Is the SBCEC committing to refund the CP dollars via the proceeds from the future sale of the Nashville HQ?
12. What cost-cutting efforts is the EC undertaking to offset these legal problems?
It is reasonable to assume that the Messengers of the Convention in Dallas will vote “NO” on this proposal from the EC unless:
- We truly know the extent of the problem;
- We understand the legal ramifications of our actions;
- We understand how we got into this mess with clarity;
- We ensure the path forward doesn’t end in the same place as the path we’ve taken so far.
As it stands today, Southern Baptists have no assurance that the people who are supposed to know the answers to the tough questions (the full EC) actually know the answers.
And if they don’t, we don’t.
The select few across the SBC who have followed these issues closely have no idea about the answers to these questions. 99% of SBC pastors (understandably) have no clue. So, the onus is on the EC to educate everyone and explain.
And if they don’t, how can we trust them?
Will they even be permitted to tell us? Or are we just supposed to rubber-stamp a new blank check with no conditions?
Action Item: If you are a Southern Baptist pastor, take this list of questions and contact your regional Executive Committee member and demand answers.
