August 31, 2023
Dear Editor:
“The Southern Baptist Convention is a convention of churches that partner to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, plant churches and provide theological education for the benefit of the kingdom of God,” I passionately explained to the congregations I’ve served as pastor in Michigan and Missouri.
Up until a few weeks ago, I still identified as an SBC member and had worked hard explaining the unique “benefits” of being an independent Baptist church in friendly cooperation with the SBC family. Last week, I decided I would not continue in cooperation with a convention I don’t believe can do what it has been called to do under the current corrupt coverup system.
The SBC has mutated into one public issue after another that members are only allowed to get crumbs of information from the vast tenacles of the inner workings of many independent entities.
I longed to have valid reasons to continue partnering with the SBC, but little materialized other than the company line of “stay and change will come.”
Last week, my delusion with that false assumption flew to the abyss where the SBC will end up if it does not change. It is my hope one day the SBC will make needed changes that will result in a system that works for the churches instead of covering for and protecting its entities.
I hope mentioning a few of the reasons will cause other SBC members and churches to challenge the system or consider the value of continuing in the SBC.
First, the North American Mission Board under the direction of Kevin Ezell has shown itself to indulge in practices that are dangerous and concerning to any local church that understands the big picture. Under the direction of Ezell and NAMB’s defense of a dismissed lawsuit, the SBC was legally described by a federal judge as “the Baptist Church.”
“NAMB has arrogantly opened the door for autonomous churches to be viewed as one denomination (like the Catholic Church) in future litigation.”
NAMB has arrogantly opened the door for autonomous churches to be viewed as one denomination (like the Catholic Church) in future litigation. This ruling was a huge factor in concluding the SBC is no longer representing my conviction of a Baptist church being autonomous. The main church planting vehicle of the SBC legally worked hard to show differently.
All SBC members and churches should be reaching out to NAMB and its trustees to express outrage and demand accountability. Further, witnesses in the court preceding testified to Ezell’s strong-arm ways of dealing with people whom he seems to have scores with or who get out of line.
On top of this, it is exhausting to attempt to learn the true workings of their finances, like executive salaries, real estate purchases and how they influence the state conventions (by their giving).
Another area about NAMB is they do not publish a list of their current church plants. Why is it a cooperating SBC church or member cannot see the list to pray? My assumption is NAMB fudges the numbers to keep the money coming through Annie Armstrong and CP giving.
Last, NAMB has a record of some of their churches being planted and after leaving their umbrella proudly boasting of their female pastors. I remember a couple of years ago wondering why Kevin Ezell was having to proclaim publicly that they don’t do this and don’t let their church planters drink alcohol. My deduction is that this must be happening.
The SBC Executive Committee has one reason for being in existence and it is supposed to be directing the money to the correct places. In recent years, we have seen them grow in their purpose (under the direction of the messengers) by establishing a sexual abuse prevention number and committee with non-SBC influences being used. They never have made public what they do with the people who call.
What if they are giving the people who call legal advice or help? This all points to the non-SBC Rachael Denhollander influence and other expensive attorneys (who have more a say than the trustees).
The Executive Committee has consistently shown an unwillingness to reveal to the convention how much they are spending on legal expenses and the amount of increases in insurance from this. I am sure I am wrong, but it appears they have not helped one victim.
The latest with the Executive Committee is they appointed someone as interim president who is a member of a church that is dually affiliated with the SBC and the vast liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
I personally have found Jonathan Howe to be insulting, especially running down the capital of my state, Missouri (Jefferson City), during one of his podcasts. I hope the trustees will explain how they are comfortable with him being the interim president and before that the mouthpiece of the SBC media when he is a member of a liberal church.
A final criticism is in June I learned that our mission giving is only good if you do it the way the convention says. This came up when Mike Stone’s church was revealed to be giving directly to the International Mission Board. It was declared that because he did not go through “acceptable” channels, it was not called Cooperative Program.
I could only think what an arrogant, condescending way of counting giving. If a church is looked down upon when giving to the most important SBC entity (missions), then count me out of this Pharisaical way of deciding what is acceptable giving.
Even though I am not SBC anymore, there are three strong parts of SBC I love.
First, the IMB is awesome and I have complete confidence in what they are doing to reach the nations under the leadership of Paul Chitwood.
Second, I am thankful the messengers spoke loudly about complementarianism at this year’s annual meeting. Although I am concerned to see past SBC presidents (Merritt, Greear, Litton, etc.) trying to rally messengers to vote against it, I will pray many messengers show up in Indianapolis in vast numbers to vote for the Law Amendment.
Finally, the local associations and small churches are still doing the work and that is really the heart and soul that runs the SBC. I hope they rise up and change the system that has become so corrupt and does not represent them. I just can no longer be a part of it for now.
Mathew Vroman, Akutan, Alaska