I’ve been a pastor in the SBC for 40 years. This is my entire ministry life and context; it’s all I know. I love the SBC and want the best for it. However, lately, I have found myself repeatedly left dumbfounded by the directions, decisions, and statements made by our leadership, particularly by the leadership of the SBC Executive Committee. 

I’m no “online actor” or “grievance grifter.” I’m just an old man, an old pastor at a local church in rural Kentucky, watching the Convention that I’ve given my life to partner with, promote, and fund for the sake of our gospel mission slowly but surely go off the rails. 

The past six to seven years in the Southern Baptist Convention have been decisively marked by many questionable and concerning decisions made by our leaders. Many pastors and church members have become disillusioned with the frequency and level of these recurring actions. 

The actions over this period of time have included: the promotion of CRT; million dollar severance packages given to failed entity heads without full trustee approval; blind eyes to plagiarism; softened stances toward homosexuality; an amicus brief redefining the structure of the SBC and her churches; entitly employees denigrating the overturn of Roe vs. Wade; unfounded attacks by an entity head on an SBC presidential candidate; deceptive statements that led to the squandering of 13 million dollars on a sex abuse task force; partnerships with law firms and corporate organizations that support the LGBTQ agenda; the repeated divulging of matters of confidentiality by a seminary staff; an inability to define the word pastor; and the unwillingness to work toward greater financial transparency and accountability. 

In addition to all these problems, and more, I have noticed another lamentable phenomenon. Those who voice concerns and warnings about our direction are slandered and attacked, but then they are proven right time and time again. 

The sabotaging entity’s head deceptive claims were proven false. The warnings about the SBC’s approval of CRT as an “analytical tool” have been proven prescient in spades. The sex abuse cover-up claims were proven to have been blown out of proportion. Still, the prediction that it would put the Convention in a financial crisis has materialized, with the cost at $13 million, and now the use of Cooperative Program money is going toward this continuing expense. 

This, in particular, has prompted many Southern Baptist churches to pause and ask whether the money entrusted to these leaders is being appropriately stewarded, and whether their local church should take more control until the SBC is put back on a sound course under new and faithful leadership.  

Now we face the most recent debacle that could be the “last straw” for many of our Southern Baptist churches. 

Dr. Jeff Iorg, President and CEO of the Executive Committee of the SBC, has created a firestorm among many concerned members of our Convention of churches. At a recent EC meeting, Dr. Iorg lamented that SBC churches have decided to take control of how their missional funds are being distributed. He never acknowledges that it could be due to the continuous “blind eyes and deaf ears” to the concerns that these churches and their messengers to the Convention have tried to address for the past several years. 

Dr. Iorg states that there are “programmatic and political reasons for these current changes, but a more important factor is the philosophical commitment underlying these developments.” He continues by stating that “changes in the Cooperative Program are rooted in a worldview shift that has marked Western culture and, unfortunately, bled into SBC life.” 

So, according to Dr. Iorg, the overriding reason is a new “worldview” that is not a “biblical” worldview but something totally opposite. This statement implies that any voice that raises concerns about the SBC entities and institutions, their leaders and presidents, their employees, and their involvement in questionable affiliations is not rooted in a biblical worldview. The accusation is explicit: those who dare to confront and question are not being motivated by biblical conviction. 

So, what is the worldview that Dr. Iorg has identified as the dominant issue of our day, leading our conscientious Baptist brothers and sisters to speak out, confront, and seek to create change? Dr. Iorg says, “The problem is the fracturing influence of ‘Expressive Individualism’, the dominant worldview of our time.” 

You can watch the first clip that was widely shared right here.

According to Dr. Iorg, SBC members and churches that have made a gut-wrenching decision to designate where their missional money goes and how it is spent are doing it because of “Expressive Individualism.” This is quite a disturbing accusation, but it gets worse. 

He then explains what he thinks this “worldview” is. Dr. Iorg declares, “Expressive Individualism is the root of cultural developments ranging from obsessive sharing on social media to convincing children they can choose their gender.” This is a troubling statement to make about brothers and sisters in Christ who have tried to speak up, sacrifice to go the annual meetings to interject through voting and speaking, contacting trustees that are difficult to find and once found often do not respond, sending emails, and sitting in on conference video meetings, and when sharing verifiable information and asking questions are basically shrugged off as uninformed troublemakers. 

The attitude of many SBC leaders is that anyone who confronts or questions anything is just an agitator or seeking attention on social media. Dr. Iorg, in his definition of this worldview, has basically lumped us into the same group of people as those who are promoting gender dysfunction.  

Dr. Iorg later sent out a follow-up email, not to apologize but to defend his statements and to question the character of individuals who shared his claims in a video online. He falsely claimed that the information had been edited and his comments had been “misinterpreted.” He implies that listening to the full scope of his remarks will clarify his intent and purpose. 

However, listening to or reading the whole presentation not only did not change what he said but also exposed even more concerns. It did not change his statement that the problem with designated giving is “extreme individualism”, but he says that at times we must cooperate even when we disagree. This may be true when it comes to non-essential issues, but the issues are not non-essential. 

He then turns to the 1920s in our Convention life to support his premise. Dr. Iorg points out that controversies arose during this period, but cooperation ultimately prevailed. But this is only half the story. 

In the 1920s, a major controversy arose centered on the inspiration and authority of Scripture. There was also a prevailing cultural battle that threatened the church and the seminaries. The battle was the rise of evolutionary teaching. Due to the influence these matters were having on the institutions, the trust between the churches and the entities and institutions was harmed. This lack of trust was hindering the cooperative effort within the Convention. 

Dr. Iorg, in his report, focuses on the 1925 decision to approve the Cooperative Program that had been born in Kentucky a year earlier. However, another significant event of the 1925 Annual Meeting was the approval of the Baptist Faith and Message. This statement of faith served to clearly describe and narrow our distinctives that were related to the issues creating distrust at the time. This action laid the foundation for the approval of the Cooperative Program. Without the Baptist Faith and Message of 1925, there might not have been a Cooperative Program. 

The cooperation was not a cooperation “despite differences,”  but a cooperation built upon and solidified by the agreement that they would hold steadfast to a standard in a culture that was influencing the entities and seminaries. The voices of the churches were heeded, a change was made in reference to the drift, and it led to cooperation. 

This is what is missing in our current concerns. There is an unwillingness on the part of our SBC leaders to acknowledge that the concerns are legitimate. This has led to a massive lack of trust. And people will not give to that which they do not trust.

The reality is that the Cooperative Program will only be as strong as the trust that exists between the convention of churches and all the Convention entities and institutions. That trust must be strengthened through shoring up our biblical distinctives and increasing transparency and accountability to a greater level than what presently exists.

Dr. Iorg’s statements only serve to demean those who have made gut-wrenching decisions to be wise stewards with local church missional giving. He is oblivious to the way this comes across to concerned pastors and church members. He encourages cooperation and giving even when there are glaring issues within the entities and institutions related to the matters mentioned earlier. 

Tragically, when calls for accountability, transparency, and change are made, they are not only denied but also mocked.  

The leaders for change in the 1920s and during the Conservative Resurgence were often confronted with a mantra of “We must cooperate for the sake of global missions.” The leaders for change understood that cooperation without a proper foundation would not survive. They understood that the key to healthy global missions, soul-winning, and cooperative efforts would depend on a solid commitment to Scripture that included not only holding high the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture but also the relevance of Scripture as it related to the church’s mission in its particular culture and its relevance in the life of the believer. 

Today, we are hearing those familiar catchphrases. We may not be battling to the same level on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, but we are dealing with issues related to Scripture’s authority and relevance. The lack of relevance is tragically evident in the unholy arrogance, twisting of words, and deceptive practices of many in leadership positions. The evidence of this has been sadly observed at SBC meetings, where the actions and statements of our leaders, such as Dr. Iorg, have blocked and belittled good-faith efforts to rebuild trust through transparency and doctrinal fidelity. 

The “straw that breaks the camel’s back” is a reference that describes that one last thing, though small, that finally causes the camel to collapse. Many in Southern Baptist life are at a breaking point due to the decisions that have marked our denomination over the past few years. Many of our concerned pastors and churches continue to try to hold on and hope for change, but another straw is added, leading to thoughts of “no more.” 

For some, “no more” means leaving the Convention completely. For many others, it means taking control of their missional funds. This most recent demeaning statement by Dr. Iorg confirms once again that the “blind eyes and deaf ears” approach to leadership at the EC, which has been ongoing for many years, shows no sign of changing.

During the tumultuous years of the late 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s in SBC life, many who stayed the course during the Conservative Resurgence were motivated by the hope of real change and the pathway that was being revealed. 

Today, we are losing hope due to the actions, statements, and pathways that have been observed for several years. This most recent attack by Dr. Iorg may be the “last straw” for many Southern Baptist pastors and churches regarding Cooperative Program giving. 

As for me and my church, we are not leaving the SBC. However, due to Dr. Iorg’s recent comments, we will do exactly what he chastised other churches for doing: We will make significant changes in our missional funds and how we give, rather than continuing to send a blank check to the CP.