This common-sense, best business practice, and biblically grounded amendment would help rebuild trust in our trustee system. Even though it got referred again without debate, I won’t stop pushing it.
At the 2025 Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas, I submitted a revised motion, based on the one I had proposed in Indianapolis (but the Executive Committee rejected), to amend our Constitution to eliminate conflicts of interest among our entity trustees.
This is an amendment vital to the health and well-being of our Convention. The motion amends Article VI of our Constitution to add a section that protects the independence and integrity of our trustee system by prohibiting any trustee or Executive Committee member from simultaneously receiving financial compensation from another SBC entity.
This amendment is such a simple step to strengthen good governance practices in the SBC; as such, it’s somewhat shocking that the Executive Committee opposes it. My efforts to secure this change are grounded in a deep conviction that this is a “best practice” that is supported by the Bible’s command that “we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man” (2 Corinthians 8:21).
If enacted, it will stop many actors across the SBC from “double-dipping” and taking advantage of the Cooperative Program in ways that undermine the integrity of our Baptist system.
Here is the motion in its entirety:
Section 9. Financial Independence. No individual shall be eligible to serve as a trustee or director of any board, institution, or commission, nor as a member of the Executive Committee, if they are simultaneously receiving compensation—whether by salary, contract, or recurring stipend—from another Southern Baptist Convention entity, commission, or the Executive Committee.”
When I first proposed this amendment last year, it was in response to a concern that many of us have long sensed: that the lines between oversight and institutional affiliation are becoming increasingly blurred across our entities.
Trustees are the last line of accountability between our churches and the entities they support through the Cooperative Program. If those trustees are also financially connected and tied to another SBC entity by salary, contract, or ongoing compensation, we have a conflict of interest.
Even if there are no active unethical practices, the appearance of impropriety can still damage trust. And trust is hard to rebuild once it’s broken. We often say and are told, “trust the process.” Well, if the process lacks transparency, independence, or fairness, it’s not worthy of that trust. This amendment aims to improve the process, making it more trustworthy, transparent, and aligned with best practices in nonprofit governance and biblical principles of accountability. This motion shares a similar goal of increased transparency to the one proposed by Rhett Burns for a Form 990 equivalent in financial transparency.
These motions have everything to do with protection, and nothing to do with attacking any one individual. The purpose is to protect the trustees, the entities, the messengers, and the Convention as a whole. As the mantra went in Nashville in 2021, “The whole world is watching.” While this slogan has been weaponized to manipulate Baptists into supporting unbiblical actions and positions, it’s not false on its face. This truth should remind messengers of the startling reality that what we do, how we spend, and how we structure our entities and allocate our resources will have external consequences. How we govern ourselves is part and parcel of our gospel witness, either for good or for ill.
Despite the arguments of the platform speakers, it is a motion about governance, not personalities, and “reassurances” that everything is fine. This motion focuses on protecting the credibility of our accountability structure and ensuring that the individuals overseeing our entities don’t have financial ties that could cloud their judgment or compromise the trust our churches place in them.
In short, no one should serve as a trustee or EC member while being paid by another SBC entity.
That’s just wise, biblical stewardship.
Let me provide an example to illustrate what I’m discussing for clarity. Let’s imagine that someone is employed by “SBC Seminary A” as a faculty member. At the same time, he also serves as a trustee on the board of “SBC Entity B” (let’s say it’s the North American Mission Board).
Now imagine:
- Seminary A wants more Cooperative Program funding.
- NAMB is making financial decisions that could affect Seminary A.
- The trustee, while serving on NAMB’s board, also receives a monthly paycheck from Seminary A.
Even if he’s an honorable man, this creates a conflict of interest:
- Will he advocate for his employer?
- Will he recuse himself from certain votes?
- Will others trust that he can remain entirely objective?
This puts him in a hard spot, the board in a compromised position, and the Convention in a credibility crisis.
This is just one example that highlights the importance and the current issue we have in not adopting my amendment to the constitution. Now, let me share some additional insights to help you understand this amendment, what happened at SBC25, and what comes next, as I remain hopeful for what the future may hold.
What Happened in Dallas at SBC 2025
After submitting the motion early Tuesday morning, I prepared to call for a suspension of the standing rule that automatically refers constitutional amendments to the Executive Committee or the Committee on the Constitution. My goal was simple: to give the people an opportunity to vote on this amendment this year, not kick the can down the road.
When the Committee on Order of Business presented its report on Tuesday afternoon and my motion was referred, I made a motion to suspend the rule so we could take it to a vote. The voice vote that followed was encouraging.
Unfortunately, there was a disruption, and my motion was hijacked by other messengers attempting to make motions. As we were in the middle of voting on my request to suspend the standing rule, the focus and attention of many became confused about what was happening.
However, a messenger refocused the room back to the motion, which was placed, and read aloud from SBC President Clint Presley. Then, a call for a “division of the room” was made. For those unfamiliar with this term, I will provide a brief explanation, as I believe more SBC messengers need to become familiar with parliamentary procedures to understand and make sense of what transpires at these meetings.
Within the context of parliamentary procedure that transpires every year at the Convention, we utilize Robert’s Rules of Order. The call for “division of the room” falls under these rules and is a method used to verify the result of a voice vote or a show and count of hands/ballots to validate a clear outcome. When this is called, the chair is obligated to verify by more accurate means, including a ballot vote. The division was called, and the ballots were counted, showing a switch from my motion passing with a majority to a minority. We then called for a ballot vote, which was denied, as the parliamentarian argued that they had fulfilled their obligation.
As a result, the motion was referred to the Executive Committee without an up-or-down vote from the messengers.
Let me be clear: I believe that decision was a mistake. And not because I wanted to win, I’m okay with losing if it’s done fairly. Still, I think we were denied the opportunity to have a more accurate vote. Because the order of motions was not maintained, it caused considerable confusion for many of the messengers. That’s what’s most disappointing.
What This Amendment Would Actually Do
Let’s be clear about what this amendment does and doesn’t do, as I have had several people express and voice their concerns and fear that this wouldn’t just affect “the top echelon” but the bi-vocational pastor who may do some contract work on the side for the convention, or who may receive an honorarium for speaking.
It would:
- Require trustees and EC members to be financially independent of other SBC entities during their term of service.
- Establish a clear constitutional standard that our nominating and vetting committees can enforce.
- Improve transparency, trust, and accountability in our governance structure.
It would not:
- Disqualify faithful pastors, leaders, or former employees from serving as trustees once their financial ties have ended.
- Apply to one-time honoraria or travel reimbursements.
- Target any individual, entity, or recent decision. This is a forward-looking reform, not a retroactive rebuke.
A personal vendetta doesn’t drive this amendment, nor am I calling out any specific person; instead, I am looking out for the good of our trustees and entities to prevent any notion or hint that we are not above reproach. In an era when trust in institutions is eroding not just outside the church but also within it, it is more crucial than ever that we adopt wise, transparent, and biblically faithful practices. If we preach about accountability in the pulpit, we ought to model it in our polity. If we call for integrity in leadership, we should build systems that support it and protect it.
If we want the SBC to remain a cooperative body of churches that gives generously to the mission. In that case, we must be able to look our members in the eye and say, “The people overseeing our institutions are above reproach, not just in doctrine, but in duty.”
This amendment helps us do exactly that.
Where We Go From Here
Despite that setback, I am not discouraged. The motion is now in the hands of the Executive Committee, which has the opportunity to consider the amendment, refine the language if needed, and, Lord willing, bring it back to the messengers in 2026 with their recommendation for approval. And I pray they will.
Because this isn’t just my conviction, it’s a concern I heard echoed from dozens of pastors, lay leaders, and fellow messengers in conversations throughout the Convention. Many of them told me, “I didn’t know this wasn’t already in the Constitution.” Others asked, “Why would anyone oppose this?” Exactly.
This amendment reflects what most SBC church members already assume is true: that those who oversee our institutions are free from overlapping financial relationships that could bias their decisions. Some motions are just worth fighting for. Not because they’re popular, and certainly not because they’re easy. But because they’re right. Lord willing, if the Executive Committee does not bring the amendment back to the Convention floor in 2026, I will.
If necessary, I’ll resubmit it myself and request a suspension of the rule, as this issue needs to be debated and voted on by the messengers, not buried in a referral. This is too important to let die in committee. Our entities do incredible gospel work. Our trustees and EC members serve faithfully. However, they, and our churches, deserve structural protections that ensure they can do so with complete confidence in financial independence and spiritual integrity.
A Word to Fellow Southern Baptists
If you’re reading this as a pastor, deacon, seminary student, or engaged layperson, thank you. You are the SBC. Your voice matters. Your vote matters. And how we govern ourselves matters not just because of what the world sees, but because of what our Lord expects and demands of us. This motion is not the end. It’s the beginning of a broader conversation about how we steward the trust that our churches place in us, and I believe that many more messengers are becoming aware of some areas within our convention that need improvement.
I believe in the SBC. I believe in the Cooperative Program. And I believe this amendment will make us better, not perfect, but better at carrying out the mission we’ve been entrusted with, and will prevent unnecessary conflicts of interest that are preventable.
I’ll keep standing for this. I hope you’ll stand with me.
