Orlando - What the SBC Might Expect

 

As Southern Baptists gather in Orlando in just a few weeks, the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention will likely be about far more than reports, resolutions, elections, and procedural business. On paper, the SBC annual meeting is a gathering of messengers for worship, encouragement, and denominational business. In reality, Orlando may serve as something much deeper—a moment of reflection on the direction, trust, and future integrity of the Convention itself.

Allow me a personal note: I love Southern Baptists for all kind of reasons. This has been my spiritual home for close to 70 years. The SBC has endured through the best and worst of times because they stayed true to Jesus, His word, and respected each other. This year may be a challenge for many reasons. As I shared with my small country congregation, "When you get to be a cooperative organization of this magnitude, issues will arise and have to be dealt with. The questions before Southern Baptists are not simply administrative. They touch on doctrinal fidelity, financial stewardship, institutional transparency, trustee accountability, cultural engagement, and whether the SBC will remain firmly rooted in its historic mission while navigating the challenges of a changing era. Consider these topics.

 

The Presidency Still Matters

Southern Baptists sometimes say the SBC president has limited authority, and in one sense that is true. The president cannot dictate denominational policy or govern entities directly. Yet the role carries influence in ways that matter over time. The president appoints the Committee on Committees, which influences the Committee on Nominations, which in turn helps shape trustee boards across SBC entities.

Those appointments matter because leadership affects accountability, institutional oversight, and the long-term direction of Convention entities. The annual meeting remains one of the few places where ordinary church messengers can exercise influence over institutions that otherwise may seem distant from the local church.

At issue is a larger Baptist principle: the Convention belongs to the churches—not to Nashville, not to committees, not to agency heads, but to the cooperating churches who send messengers and provide the funding that makes the work possible.

Institutional Transparency and the NAMB Question

One of the issues heading into Orlando is the growing conversation around institutional transparency and financial stewardship—particularly regarding the North American Mission Board (NAMB).

NAMB receives a substantial share of Southern Baptist mission dollars through Cooperative Program allocations, along with millions more through designated Annie Armstrong Easter Offering gifts. Southern Baptists overwhelmingly support missions, evangelism, and church planting, but many are asking a basic stewardship question: are churches receiving clear and measurable information about what those dollars are accomplishing?

Concerns have been raised that while NAMB regularly shares ministry stories, reports, and broad descriptions of success, some Southern Baptists would like to see more detailed evaluative statistics that allow churches to better assess effectiveness. Questions have surfaced regarding church planting outcomes, missionary deployment, long-term sustainability, baptisms connected to funded efforts, and measurable return on Cooperative Program investment.

This is not fundamentally a debate about support for missions. Rather, it is a stewardship conversation.

People who give sacrificially to kingdom work naturally want confidence that their gifts are being used effectively and transparently.

Southern Baptists are a voluntary cooperative body. Churches choose to give because they believe in the mission and trust the stewardship of the entities receiving those funds. That trust is strengthened by transparency. It is and should be of grave concern when an entity, any entity of the Southern Baptist Convention repeatedly refuses to release statistics of their work to the very people who fund their work.

Orlando may once again raise the question: How can Convention entities continue to provide the kind of reporting and accountability that builds confidence among the churches they serve?

 

Trustee Accountability: Are Trustees Being Given the Full Picture?

Closely connected to this conversation is the broader issue of trustee accountability. It should be said clearly that many good, godly, capable, and deeply committed Southern Baptists serve faithfully as trustees across SBC entities. These men and women often give sacrificially of their time because they genuinely love the Convention and desire to protect its mission. For many if not most, the concern is not primarily with the trustees themselves.

The question increasingly being asked is this:

Are trustees being given the full information by executive staff necessary to exercise genuine oversight?

That question is not necessarily an accusation, but it does reflect a broader principle of governance: trustee boards can only provide effective accountability if they have access to complete, candid, and timely information.  A trustee board can only govern what it fully understands. A trustee can only ask meaningful questions if he or she has been given the data, context, and operational realities necessary to evaluate decisions properly.

This is where much of the conversation lies—not necessarily in trustee intent, but in whether the flow of information from executive leadership to trustees is sufficient for oversight to be meaningful rather than merely procedural. Southern Baptists have historically relied on trustee governance as a safeguard against concentrated institutional power. Trustees are not ceremonial figures; they are meant to represent the churches in overseeing the entities. That system works best when trustee boards operate with full access to the information needed to fulfill their responsibilities.

Orlando may bring renewed conversations not simply about who serves as trustees, but about how trustee boards can function with the knowledge and transparency necessary to provide real accountability. For me, there exists a need for Southern Baptist to have a clear understanding about the 'trust' with which the 'Convention' places in the 'trustees' themselves. It is a dangerous and contradictory concept to attempt to manage the either an entity or trustees from the floor of the convention. The ethical, legal, and moral, implications for entity management are beyond the knowledge of the messengers (me included). This is the very reason for trustees. The convention  must be sure that they are receiving the unredacted information so as to represent the interests of Southern Baptist.

 

The ERLC and Institutional Trust

Though previous efforts to abolish or dramatically restructure the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission have failed, questions surrounding the ERLC have not entirely disappeared. Some Southern Baptists continue to debate whether the ERLC consistently reflects the convictions of grassroots churches and whether its public engagement best represents the Convention as a whole.

The underlying issue is larger than one entity.

It is a question of trust:

• Do SBC entities reflect the convictions of the churches?
• Are leaders accountable to the churches?
• Is there transparency in how decisions are made?
• Are institutions serving the churches, or becoming insulated from them?

My personal prayer is that the new leader be given the support and flexibility to redirect this entity to honor the will of the rank and file
Baptist (not the other way around) and our Lord in their 'much-needed' mission. To think that Southern Baptist do not need a voice at the table of civic leadership is reckless at best and madness at worst. We need the ERLC to be our voice, not to tell us what our voice should be.

These are longstanding Baptist concerns and remain part of the broader denominational conversation.

 

Abuse Reform and Baptist Polity

No Southern Baptist should dismiss the issue of abuse reform. The Convention’s efforts in this area have been painful and sobering. Churches rightly expect protection for the vulnerable and accountability where wrongdoing occurs.

At the same time, Southern Baptists continue to wrestle with this huge question:

How can abuse reform be pursued while remaining consistent with Baptist polity and local church autonomy without abusing the church and church members in other ways?  Many pastors and church leaders remain interested in understanding what reforms have been implemented, how they are funded, what measurable progress has been made, and how those efforts align with Baptist convictions about church governance. The sad truth is this: This issue has so divided us along philosophical lines that to disagree at any point is seen as untenable.

To be clear, every Christ follower should be adamantly opposed to any abuse at any time and we should stand together against it. Plus, we should be a source of healing and hope for those who have been abused (in any way - sexually, emotionally, physically, etc),

Both concerns are important:

• Abuse must be confronted decisively.
• Baptist church autonomy must be preserved.

Orlando will likely continue that conversation.

 

Resolutions and Moral Clarity

Some dismiss SBC resolutions as symbolic exercises, but many Southern Baptists see them as opportunities to speak clearly to the churches and to the culture.

Issues such as:

• sanctity of life
• religious liberty
• gender and sexuality
• moral clarity in public life
• biblical faithfulness in cultural engagement

will likely continue to be part of the Orlando conversation.

The larger question is whether Southern Baptists will speak with biblical clarity and conviction on issues facing both the church and the broader culture.

Historically, the SBC has often viewed resolutions as one way to articulate its collective convictions, even though they are non-binding.

 

The Larger Question: Trust and the Future of the Convention

Perhaps the real Orlando issue lies beneath all the motions, elections, and reports.

It is the question Southern Baptists continue to ask:

Who is shaping the Convention?

Is it still the local churches through their messengers?

Or has the SBC increasingly become influenced by boards, executive staffs, institutional structures, and denominational systems that ordinary church messengers struggle to influence?

This is not a new Baptist question.

Baptists have historically believed that institutions exist to serve the churches—not the other way around.

That is why conversations about NAMB, trustee information, entity transparency, Cooperative Program stewardship, and institutional accountability are not isolated controversies.

They all point to a deeper concern:

How can Southern Baptists maintain trust, openness, accountability, and confidence in the cooperative system that has defined the Convention for generations?

 

Final Assessment

Southern Baptists heading to Orlando should not go merely to observe.

They should go praying, informed, and engaged.

The Convention is healthiest when it remains:

• biblically faithful
• doctrinally clear
• missionally focused
• financially transparent
• trustee-accountable
• structurally answerable to the churches

The challenges facing the SBC are not simply theological or administrative. They also involve trust, transparency, governance, and the relationship between the churches and the institutions they support.

Southern Baptists gathering in Orlando will undoubtedly hear reports, elect officers, adopt resolutions, and celebrate kingdom work.

But beneath all of it may be one lingering question:

Will the Southern Baptist Convention continue to operate in a way that strengthens trust, conviction, and transparency among its churches?

That question may not be formally printed on the agenda.

But it may be one of the most important issues on the floor.